Research Article

Effects of Van Hiele’s Phase-based Teaching Strategy and Gender on Pre-service Mathematics Teachers’ Geometry Achievement in Niger State, Nigeria

Hassan Usman 1 * , Wun Thiam Yew 2, Salmiza Saleh 2
More Detail
1 Niger State College of Education, Minna, NIGERIA2 School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), 2020, ep2006,
OPEN ACCESS   888 Views   908 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The study investigated the effects of Van Hiele’s phase-based teaching strategy and gender on Pre-service mathematics teachers’ geometry achievement in Niger State, Nigeria. Based on the theoretical framework of the study, three research objectives with corresponding null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. The study employed a two-by-two (2x2) quasi experimental factorial design. One hundred and forty-nine (149) pre-service mathematics teachers from two colleges of education situated in Niger state, Nigeria were used as research sample. The sample colleges were selected using a purposive sampling technique. The experimental group was exposed to Van Hiele’s phase-based teaching strategy while the control group was taught same topics with conventional teaching strategy. Geometry Achievement Test (GAT) covering topics in Geometry was used to collect data for both pre and post achievement test. A Cronbach alpha was computed to ascertain the internal consistency of the instrument (GAT) and reliability coefficient of 0.79 was obtained. The data was analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) at 0.05 level of significance. The results of the study revealed that van Hiele’s phase-based teaching strategy is more effective than conventional teaching strategy in improving pre-service mathematics teachers’ achievement. It was therefore recommended that, since it has been established from the findings of this study that van Hiele phase-based teaching strategy is more effective than conventional teaching strategy in improving pre-service mathematics teachers’ geometry achievement, both prospective (pre-service teachers) and practicing teachers who seek to enhance their instructional practices and promote their learners’ geometric understanding to embrace the van Hiele phase-based teaching strategy in their classrooms.


Usman, H., Yew, W. T., & Saleh, S. (2020). Effects of Van Hiele’s Phase-based Teaching Strategy and Gender on Pre-service Mathematics Teachers’ Geometry Achievement in Niger State, Nigeria. International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), ep2006.


  1. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013a). The effects of van Hiele’s phases of learning geometry on students’ degree of acquisition of van Hiele levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 251-266.
  2. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013b). The effects of van Hiele’s phase-based instruction using the geometer’s sketchpad (GSP) on students’ levels of geometric thinking. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(5), 1652-1660.
  3. Abdullah, A. H., Ibrahim, N. H., Surif, J., & Zakaria, E. (2014). The effects of Van Hiele’s phase-based learning on students’ geometric achievement and attitude towards geometry. In Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 317-324). IEEE.
  4. Abu, M. S., Ali, M. B., & Hock, T. T. (2012). Assisting primary school children to progress through their van Hiele’s levels of geometry thinking using Google SketchUp. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 75-84.
  5. Adesoji, F. A., & Fisuyi, M. O. (2001). Analysis of problem-solving difficulties of students in volumetric analysis according to gender. Journal of Educational Studies, 1, 106-117.
  6. Ajai, J. T., & Imoko, B. I. (2015). Gender differences in mathematics achievement and retention scores: A case of problem-based learning method. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(1), 45-50.
  7. Al-ebous, T. (2016). Effect of the Van Hiele Model in Geometric Concepts Acquisition: The Attitudes towards Geometry and Learning Transfer Effect of the First Three Grades Students in Jordan. International Education Studies, 9(4), 87.
  8. Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2016). Lessons Learnt From Employing van Hiele Theory Based Instruction In Senior Secondary School Geometry Classrooms. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2223-2236.
  9. Ali, I., Bhagawati, S., & Sarmah, J. (2014). Performance of Geometry among the Secondary School Students of Bhurbandha CD Block of Morigaon District, Assam, India. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(11), 73-77. Retrieved from
  10. Anagbogu, M. A., & Ezeliora, B. (2007). Sex differences and scientific performance. Women Journal of Science and Technology, 4(1), 10-20.
  11. Atebe, H. U. (2008). Student’s van Hiele levels of geometric thought and conception in plane geometry: a collective case study of Nigeria and South Africa (Doctoral dissertation), Rhodes University.
  12. Atebe, H. U., & Schäfer, M. (2011). The nature of geometry instruction and observed learning-outcomes opportunities in Nigerian and South African high schools. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 191-204.
  13. Baffoe, E. & Mmereku, D. K. (2010). The van hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Science, 8, 51-61.
  14. Benjamin, I., & Agwagah N.V. (2006). Improving Students Interest in Mathematics through the concept mapping technique; A focus on gender. Journal of research in Curriculum and Teaching, 1(1), 30-38.
  15. Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for research in mathematics education, 17(1), 31-48.
  16. Chew C. M. & Lim, C. S. (2009). Assessing pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ geometric thinking. In Asian Mathematical Conference, Malaysia 2009.
  17. Chew, C. M. (2007). Form one students’ learning of solid geometry in a phase-based instructional environment using The Geometer’s Sketchpad (Doctoral dissertation), Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya.
  18. Chew, C. M., & Lim, C. S. (2013). Enhancing primary pupils’ geometric thinking through phase-based instruction using the geometer’s sketchpad. The Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education (formerly known as Journal of Educators and Education), 28(1), 1-19.
  19. Choi-Koh, S. S. (2000). The activities based on van Hiele model using computer as a tool. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 4(2), 63-77.
  20. Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., Timmer, J. D., Makowski, M. B., & Miller, E. K. (2016). Have gender gaps in math closed? Achievement, teacher perceptions, and learning behaviors across two ECLS-K cohorts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1-19.
  21. Contini, D., Laura, M., & Mendilia, S. (2016). The gender gap in mathematics achievement: Evidence from Italia data. Retrieved from
  22. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
  23. Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1-16.
  24. Egorova, M. S., & Chertkova, I. (2016). Sex differences in mathematical achievement: grades, national test, and self-confidence. Psychology in Russia, 9(3), 4. 2016.0301.
  25. Farajimakin, I. O. (2010). Gender Issues: Students Performance in Senior Secondary School Mathematics Examination in Nigeria. Retrieved from
  26. Federal Government of Nigeria (2004). National policy on Education, Nigeria: NERD.
  27. Halat, E. (2008a). In-service middle and high school mathematics teachers: Geometric reasoning stages and gender. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 8-14.
  28. Halat, E. (2008b). Pre-Service Elementary School and Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Van Hiele Levels and Gender Differences. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1.
  29. Ifamuyiwa, A. S., & Ajilogba, S. I. (2012). A problem solving model as a strategy for improving secondary school students’ achievement and retention in further Mathematics. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology, 2(2), 122-130.
  30. Iwendi, B. C., & Oyedum, N. A. (2014). Effects of gender and age on the mathematics achievement of secondary school students in Minna metropolis, Niger state. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education (JOSTMED), 9(1), 161-166.
  31. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  32. Kovas, Y., Garon-Carrier, G., Boivin, M., Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Malykh, S. B., ... Brendgen, M. (2015). Why children differ in motivation to learn: Insights from over 13,000 twins from 6 countries. Personality and individual differences, 80, 51-63.
  33. Lin, T. J., Lin, T. C., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 367-387.
  34. Luneta, K. (2015). Understanding students’ misconceptions: an analysis of final Grade 12 examination questions in geometry. Pythagoras, 36(1), 1-11.
  35. Mak, W. F (2016). effects of lesson study incorporating phase-based instruction on form one students’ achievement and learning motivation in geometry (Unpublished M.Ed Thesis), Universiti sains Malaysia.
  36. Mata, M. D. L., Monteiro, V., & Peixoto, F. (2012). Attitudes towards mathematics: Effects of individual, motivational, and social support factors. Child development research, 2012. ID 876028,
  37. Mlodinow, L., & Gray, J. (2001). book reviews-Euclid’s Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace. Nature, 411(6840), 888-888.
  38. Mostafa, M., Javad, L. M., & Reza, O. H. (2016). The Effect of Van Hiele Theory-Based Teaching Educational Package on Achievement Goal Orientation of Student Teachers. Review of European Studies, 9(1), 93.
  39. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Fierros, E. G., Goldberg, A. L., & Stemler, S. E. (2000). Gender differences in achievement: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
  40. Musa, A. K. J., Dauda, B., & Umar, M. A. (2016). Gender difference in achievement goal and performance in English Language and Mathematics of senior secondary school students in Borno state, Nigeria. Journal of educational Practice 7(27), 165-175.
  41. National Examination Council (NECO). (2012). Chief examiner’s report.
  42. Noraini, I. (2005). Teaching and Learning of mathematics. Malaysia: Utusan Publ.
  43. Ogundele, G. A., Olanipekun, S.S., & Kola, A.J. (2014). Cause of poor performance in west Africa School Certificate Examination (WASCE) in Nigeria. Scholar Journal of Art, Humanity, and social Sciences, 2(5B), 670-676.
  44. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead.
  45. Patkin, D., & Barkai, R. (2014). Geometric thinking levels of pre-and in-service mathematics teachers at various stages of their education. Educational Research Journal, 29(1/2), 1.
  46. Rico, L. (2012). Aproximación a la Investigación en Didáctica de la Matemática [Aproach to the research on Didactics of Mathematics]. Avances de Investigación en Educ. Matem. 1, 39-63.
  47. Robert, B. A., Primrose O. C., Christopher A. O. (2018). Investigating the Effect of van Hiele Phase-based Instruction on Pre-service Teachers’ Geometric Thinking. International Journal of Education and science, 4(1) 314-330.
  48. Russell, D. (2014). What is Geometry? Retrieved from
  49. Sanchez, A. B., Lopez, R. (2011). The transfer of algorithmic learning and the origin of error in subtraction. Revista de Educ, (354), 429-445.
  50. Sánchez-García, A. B., & Cabello, A. B. (2016). An instrument for measuring performance in geometry based on the van Hiele model. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(13), 1194-1201.
  51. Serow, P. (2008). Investigating a phase approach to using technology as a teaching tool. Navigating currents and charting directions. In proceeding of the 31st annual conference of the mathematics education research Group of Australsia (pp. 445-452).
  52. Sunzuma, G., Masocha, M., & Zezekwa, N. (2013). Secondary school students’ attitudes towards their learning of geometry: a survey of Bindura urban secondary schools. Greener Journal of Educational Research, 3(8), 402-410.
  53. Usiskin, Z. (1982). van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry. (Final Report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project) Chicago: University of Chicago (ERIC Document Reproduction service Number ED220288).
  54. van Hiele, P. (1999), Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310-316.
  55. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: a theory of mathematics education. Academic Pres. Inc: Orlando, Florida.
  56. Van Hiele, P. V., & Pierre, M. (1986). Structure and insight. A Theory of Mathematics Education. Orlando: Academic.
  57. Wells, C. S., & Wollack, J. A. (2003). An instructor’s guide to understanding test reliability. Testing & Evaluation Services. University of Wisconsin.
  58. West African Examination Council WAEC (2014). West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination May/June Chief Examiner’s Report.