MISCONCEPTIONS AND RELATED ERRORS DISPLAYED BY PRE-SERVICE

FOUNDATION PHASE TEACHERS IN TRANSFORMATION GEOMETRY

Nokwanda Mbusi
University of Johannesburg
South Africa
nokwandam@uj.ac.za

Abstract – This paper reports on a bigger study aimed at identifying pre-service teachers’
misconceptions with transformation geometry and addressing these using the van Hiele phases of
learning. I report here only on the misconceptions identified. An action research approach was
conducted with 82 BEd Foundation Phase student teachers and data was collected through tests and
semi-structured interviews, used to complement the test results. Content analysis of participants’
responses to written tasks and interviews were used to determine errors, leading to the formulation of
misconceptions. The findings revealed that the errors displayed ranged from non-systemic errors due
to students misreading information or forgetting some piece of information, to systemic errors or
misconceptions which may be attributable to various reasons. Misconceptions included problems with
solution strategies and rules previously learned; insufficient skill in working with practical
measurements resulting in faulty procedures when measuring lengths of lines and sizes of angles; the
tendency to consider geometrical figures as material objects, resulting in participants relying on their
visual perceptions rather than reasoning based on the properties of the figures. The findings also seem
to support literature that claims that most pre-service teachers have not developed beyond van Hiele’s
Level 2 of geometric reasoning.

Keywords: Misconceptions; Transformation geometry; van Hiele theory.

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Several objectives for teaching mathematics in the Foundation Phase in South Africa have been
identified. Among those objectives is the “deep conceptual understanding in order to make sense of
mathematics” (Department of Basic Education, 2011, p. 8). Thus Foundation Phase learners are
expected to master key mathematical concepts from their early years of learning the subject. Primary
elementary mathematics is regarded as “fundamental, as it contains the rudiments of many key
concepts in more advanced branches of the discipline” (Ma, 2010, p. 116). Unfortunately, evidence
points to the fact that school learners often lack this deep conceptual understanding in mathematics
(Atebe, 2008; Makonye, 2011).

In particular, learners at all levels of schooling have challenges with the learning of geometry (van der
Sandt, 2007). For example, in Luneta’s (2014) study, in which BEd Foundation Phase students’ basic
knowledge of geometry was investigated, he found out that although the student teachers had passed
Grade 12, their knowledge of basic geometry was found wanting. It is therefore not surprising that
teachers are also part of the challenge with the learning of geometry because they provide teaching
which is often of poor quality, “with teachers not able to answer questions in the curriculum they
teach” (Bernstein, 2013:1). This suggests that the content knowledge student teachers obtain from
their training courses is not adequate and relevant for the learners they are supposed to teach.

Furthermore, in geometry, information might be communicated at different levels of reasoning of the

teacher and the student, which becomes a major cause of misconception (Luneta 2015). Thus there is a
possibility of errors occurring because students have difficulties in understanding the instructional
approaches used by the teacher. Research needs to be done to determine the nature of students’
(including pre-service teachers) difficulties with learning geometry, as well as come up with possible
solutions. An important aspect of this research direction would be the identification of students’
386
mistakes (Panaoura & Gagatsis, 2009). This paper reports on a study that sought to identify and
address pre-service Foundation Phase teachers’ misconceptions with transformation geometry.

Transformational geometry has been described as an aspect of geometry which deals with the way
geometrical shapes or objects are changed into their various images under reflections, translations,
rotations, glide reflections and magnifications on a plane (Evbuomwan, 2013). Within the broader
context of geometry, students have been found to be struggling with the learning of transformation
geometry (Bansilas & Naidoo, 2012; Luneta, 2015). Bansilas and Naidoo (2012) discovered that
misconceptions involving the concept of transformational geometry included the incompetent use of
algebraic manipulations. This would happen when, for example, students, in response to “a translation
of 3 units to the right”, write “x – 3 = -2 -3 = 5”. Also, the use of rules rather than visualisation has been
found to create problems because students couldn’t always remember the rules involved. According to
a study by Ilaslan (2013), teachers do not feel confident enough to implement transformational
geometry especially rotation since they lack adequate training and support. It is possible that teachers
may not teach mathematics topics that they find to be very difficult, or “they may treat topics whose
conceptual demand they do not appreciate, perfunctorily” (Chick, 2002: 180). Hence it is important
that pre-service teachers who will be laying the foundation for further learning of geometry in the near
future are prepared adequately in their studies involving transformation geometry. A study such as this
one could help build the confidence needed by these teachers to teach the topic.

With the reintroduction of transformation geometry into the curriculum in the primary school level in
South Africa (Department of Basic Education, 2011), it is crucial that prospective primary school
teachers are well grounded in the topic. This coupled with the fact that a number of the student
teachers that enroll for the BEd Foundation Phase program, with whom this study was carried out, did
not learn transformation geometry as part of their high school curriculum. Thus these students have a
gap of knowledge on transformation geometry. Yet they are expected to master the topic as part of the
curriculum in the BEd Foundation Phase programme for which they are enrolled.

This study aimed to identify BEd students’ misconceptions with transformation geometry. The research
questions were:
What errors are displayed by BEd (Foundation Phase) students when working with transformation
geometry?
What misconceptions are associated with the errors displayed?

2. LITERATURE PERSPECTIVES
Theoretical framework
Error analysis, also referred to as error pattern analysis, is the study of errors in learners’ work with a
view to finding explanations for these reasoning errors (Herholdt & Sapire, 2014). In their approach to
error analysis, Rach, Ufer & Heinze (2013:23) distinguish between a “pragmatic, outcome- oriented,
and an analytic, process-oriented path of action” (p. 23), as depicted in the figure below:

387
 Figure 1: Process model for learning in error situations (Rach, Ufer & Heinze, 2013)

While the former approach depicted on the left in the above figure, proceeds directly from error
recognition to error rectification, the latter route includes a closer analysis of the error and the
generation of error prevention strategies. With respect to this study, the latter approach was
applicable since, after detecting the students’ errors and misconceptions that are responsible for such
errors, these were analysed and an intervention program was carried out to address them with the
hope that in the long run they would be prevented or minimized in future.

Misconceptions and associated errors

One important context in which teachers need to play a vital role in trying to improve student
performance in mathematics, particularly geometry, is identifying and addressing student errors and
misconceptions. According to Panaoura & Gagatsis (2009), errors were seen for the first time in a
positive way in the work of Piaget, whereby they allowed the tracing of the reasoning mechanisms
adopted by students. This means that making errors in computation, for example, is not completely
bad because it becomes an important part of the learning process if these errors are dealt with
diagnostically.

Errors and misconceptions are related, even though they are different in many aspects. “An error is a
mistake, slip, blunder or inaccuracy” (Luneta & Makonye 2010: 35). A basic premise in differentiating
between an error and a misconception is that errors are easily detected in learners’ work such as
written text or speech, while misconceptions are often hidden from mere observation without scrutiny.
If errors and misconceptions were to be put on a continuum, one would have non-systematic errors on
one end, and the more serious systematic errors, which are deeply rooted in misconceptions, on the
opposite end (Makonye, 2011: 11). The aim of this study was therefore to discover the “hidden”
misconceptions.

Classification of errors
Various authors have put forward different ways in which errors can be classified. Most of these
classifications fall under two broad categories, namely, non-systematic and systematic errors.

Non-systematic errors
Non-systematic errors are normally referred to as slips and might exist due to students’ carelessness,
misreading information or forgetting some piece of information, unintentionally. Normally, students
will easily correct such errors by themselves because there are no fundamental and faulty conceptual
structures associated with them. However, teachers are warned that “errors in the learning of
mathematics are not simply the absence of correct answers or the result of unfortunate accidents.
They are the consequence of definite processes whose nature must be discovered” (Wiens, 2007: 5).
Even if these errors were simple slip ups, they should not be taken lightly because they can demoralize
388
learners and impede their performance when committed, thus becoming “a serious inhibitor to
learning as mathematics builds on itself” (Schnepper & McCoy, 2013: 1). These types of errors were
detected in this study, as discussed under section 4 below.

Systematic errors
VanLehn (1990) indicated that systematic errors mean consistent application of faulty methods,
algorithms or rules. The cause of systematic errors may relate to students’ procedural knowledge,
conceptual knowledge, or links between these two types of knowledge (Xiaobao, 2006: 4). Examples of
systematic errors have been suggested, such as errors due to deficiencies of mastery prerequisite skills,
facts and concepts and errors due to the application of irrelevant rules or strategies (Egodawatte 2011,
p. 36). Further examples suggested include making logically invalid inferences, applying an improper
version of a definitions or theorem and having the right solution to the wrong question, or making a
mistake in a basic skill (Schnepper & McCoy, 2013: 1). Some of the examples of systematic errors
suggested here are applicable in this study, as discussed under section 4 below.

The van Hiele theory

Problems experienced by learners (and pre-service teachers) when learning geometry have been
investigated in various studies, many of which used the van Hiele theory (Mayberry, 1983; Feza &
Webb, 2005; Wu & Ma, 2006; Luneta, 2014). In studies that used the van Hiele theory to identify
students’ misconceptions (Siyepu, 2005; Atebe, 2008; Alex & Mammen, 2014; Luneta, 2015), it proved
to be a useful framework for extracting, measuring, understanding and addressing students’ difficulties
with school geometry. In the context of this study, the van Hiele theory played an important role in
that it helped diagnose some of the causes of the misconceptions displayed by the students in that
questions were set to cater for particular levels of development of students’ reasoning in geometry.
Also, as part of the bigger study of which this paper is a report on only a portion of, the van Hiele
theory was used to address the misconceptions identified.
According to the van Hiele theory, learners advance through five hierarchical levels of reasoning when
they learn geometric concepts. These levels are recognition, analysis, ordering, deduction and rigour.
For this study it was further critical that the pre-service teachers were assisted in attaining a level of
geometric thinking in transformation geometry that would possibly, in turn, enable them to provide
assistance to learners in their own classrooms when they teach the concept of transformation
geometry in future. Therefore, as part of determining their misconceptions with transformation
geometry it was important to get an idea of the level of geometric reasoning at which they were, based
on the van Hiele theory.
Closely linked to the van Hiele theory is Soon’s levels of geometric thinking on transformation
geometry. Soon (1989) developed these levels by identifying the kind of competences that students
need to master at each of the van Hiele levels (see table on section 3.3). In discussing the findings of
this study, reference will be made to Soon’s and van Hiele levels.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research paradigm, approach and method
This study is based on the interpretivist paradigm, which seeks to understand the situation from the
perspective of the participant (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). The study was interpretive in nature
because its aim was to understand the misconceptions displayed by students and then attempt to get
answers from the perspective of the students through face to face interactions during classwork
activities and detailed written work.

The study qualitative in nature in that its aim was to understand a social phenomenon, from the
perspective of the human participants in the study, data is collected in natural setting and research
aims at generating theory rather than testing theory (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002; Creswell, 2010).

389
The action research approach was used to conduct this study. Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001: 8))
describe action research as “a study of a social situation carried out by those involved in that situation
in order to improve both their practice and the quality of their understanding”. The aim of the study
was to improve the researcher’s practice through the implementation of an intervention program, with
the hope of an increase in the quality of students’ understanding of transformation geometry.

Sampling
Purposeful sampling (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001) was done, with participants being a group of 82
second year BEd Foundation Phase students at a university in the Mpumalanga province in South
Africa. This group of students had to learn transformation geometry as part of their BEd (year 2)
curriculum, thus being the relevant group for the investigation of the phenomenon of interest, namely,
misconceptions displayed in transformation geometry. The whole group of second year students
enrolled for the BEd programme was selected because this was an action research study where an
inquiry was done while executing an intervention aimed at improvement (Waterman, Tillen, Dickson &
de Koning 2001: 4) of the researcher’s practice as well as the level of understanding of all the students.

Data collection and analysis

Data was collected by means of tests and interviews. First, a test was administered to participants
before any instruction on the topic of transformation geometry was done. The purpose of the test was
to identify students’ errors in working with transformation geometry problems. Questions in the test
covered the topic as stipulated in the curriculum of the BEd programme, namely, concepts on
translation, reflection and rotation. The test items were based on and adapted from the general
frameworks for investigating learners’ van Hiele levels of development, as suggested by Mayberry
(1981) and Usiskin (1982).

The test items were formulated in such a way that they tested students’ understanding of
transformation geometry according to the van Hiele levels. The test questions were based mainly on
Soon (1989), who determined van Hiele-like levels for learning transformation geometry, as well as on
Burger and Shaughnessy (1986), who placed the study of isometric transformations in the van Hiele
framework.

Soon’s (1989) levels are depicted in the table below. For the purpose of this study, only levels 1
through 4 were considered. In discussing the findings, an association will be made between the errors
made by students in the study and these levels.

390
 Table 1: Soon’s (1989) levels
Levels Characteristics: The student ...
Level 1 Identifies transformation by the changes in the figure; (a) in simple
drawings of figures and images; and (b) in pictures of everyday
applications.
Identifies transformation by performing actual motion; names,
discriminates the transformation.
Names or labels transformations using standard and/or non-standard
names and labels appropriately.
Solves problems by operating on changes of figures or motion rather
than using properties of the changes.
Level 2 Uses the properties of changes to draw the pre-image or image of a
given transformation.
Discovers properties of changes to figures resulting from specific
transformation.
Uses appropriate vocabulary for the properties and transformation.
Is able to locate axis of reflection, centre of rotation, translation vector
and centre of enlargement.
Relates transformations using coordinates.
Solves problems using known properties of transformations.
Level 3 Performs composition of simple transformations.
Describes changes to states (pre-image, image) after composite
transformations.
Represents transformations using coordinates and matrices.
Inter-relates the properties of changes to a figure resulting from
transformations.
Given initial and final states, can name a single transformation.
Given initial and final states, can decompose and recombine a
transformation as a composition of simple transformations.
Level 4 Gives geometric proofs using transformational approach.
Gives proofs using the coordinates and matrices.
Thinks through multi-step problems and gives reasons for problems.
Level 5 Understands – associative, commutative, inverse, identity with respect
to a composite transformation operation.
Identifies groups of transformations.
Proves or disproves subsets of transformation from group structures.

Interviews were then conducted with selected students (21 in all) based on their responses in the test,
to determine the sources of the errors they displayed in the test scripts.

Inductive analysis of data was done, with the aim of uncovering patterns and regularities in data as well
as general explanations, in order to generate theory (Hatch, 2002). Content analysis of the scripts was
done. The responses to the written pre-test and the interviews were carefully analysed to determine
common patterns of difficulties and errors, leading to the formulation of misconceptions that students
had.

Validity, reliability and ethical considerations

391
The test was first piloted with different groups of BEd students who were not participants in the study,
to determine whether they elicited the intended responses and interactions. The piloting process
proved the instruments to be reliable.

Written consent was obtained from all participants and confidentiality was maintained. Students were
assured of inclusivity since the follow-up intervention was supposed to benefit everybody.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of the student test scripts as well as insight from follow-up interviews confirmed that the
students have various misconceptions and associated errors with the topic of transformation
geometry. These will be discussed under two broad categories, namely, non-systematic errors and
systematics errors.

Non-systematic errors
As mentioned before, these are unintentional slips or errors due to carelessness.
Misreading information
An error due to misreading which figure is the original and which one is the image, was displayed,
leading to an incorrect answer. For example in the multiple choice question below, 26 students (32%)
chose option ‘a’ as the correct answer in the question below. Later on some acknowledged during
interviews that they did not really “read carefully” on which triangle the transformation was
performed.

In some instances, students carelessly read “anti-clockwise” as “clockwise”, leading to incorrect

identification of figures and images (Soon level 1). However, this error could also be associated with
language problems, in cases where, for example, students mentioned that they “always confused
clockwise and anti-clockwise direction”.
Missing information
Errors were identified, that involved writing the incorrect ordered pair, by omitting the negative sign,
even though the points are correctly labelled or identified on the system of axes. This is the situation in
both cases in the examples below. It should be noted that in the second example, question 14, the
student made a double error: the missing sign as well as the fact that her explanation is correct for a
reflection and not for a rotation. Thus this example also concurs with Schnepper’s (2013) idea of an
error involving having the right solution to the wrong question.

392
Systematic errors
Students displayed quite a number of errors that relate to their procedural knowledge and conceptual
knowledge. These are what we referred to earlier on as misconceptions. A discussion of these errors
follows below.
Errors involving basic operations
Errors like the ones below were common, where the student made double error by first interpreting “2
units to the right’ as “- 2” and secondly by working out -2-2 = 0.

In the case below, a student worked out -2 + 3 = 5.

What are the coordinates of each vertex if the figure below is translated 3 units to the
right and 2 units down? Circle the correct answer.

Application of irrelevant rules, strategies or incorrect/incomplete/incomprehensible descriptions of

transformations
Below is an error where a student gave a description that indicates that he is confusing translation with
enlargement.

393
In answering the following question, 53 students (65%) either applied the rule for, or a description of
reflection even though the question involved a rotation, such as in the example below.

In the following example, the student describes a shift/translation but gives the rule for a reflection.

For the same question as the one above, the student describes the transformation as a reflection but
uses terminology that is pertinent to a rotation, such as “90° clockwise”

Errors involving incomplete descriptions of transformations, especially rotation, were prevalent, such
as in the two examples below. Statements such as “Rotation of 90° clockwise” or “90° rotation” were
used to describe the transformation of figure CFED to C'F'E'D. 60% of the students who correctly
identified the transformation below as a rotation failed to describe it completely, thus they were
unable to “name the transformation, given initial and final states” (Soon level 3).

Incomprehensible explanations or descriptions were not uncommon, such as

“Translation is when you move a shape to other positions, using the given numbers”.

394
“Card has turned 1 unit” or has “rotated one more time”. That is, failing to use angles to describe the
amount of turn. Turning one unit/one more time in this case is taken as meaning “turning once to the
left/right/down/up” as in the following diagram:

“The position of this card is like it is still on process for rotating…” or simply “rotation of 90°”,
suggesting that some students think that rotation can only be through angles of 90°, 180°, 270° and
360°.
The above errors suggest that the students could not achieve level 2, as depicted in Soon’s levels.
Errors involving inability to discover properties of changes to figures resulting from specific
transformation.
In translating a shape, a point at one “furthest” end of the shape is chosen and then only this one
particular point is used to determine the given translation, that is, to find out how far the shape has
been shifted. In the example on the left below, for example, 18% of the students chose option A as the
correct answer. Another example is given below on
the right.

Possibly due to lack of visualisation skills, some students could not “visualise” (even though they
plotted correct points and drew correct image) that in the question below, the transformation
performed cannot be a reflection on any of the axes. These students could therefore not “identify
transformation by the changes in the figure, that is, Soon’s level 1.

Errors involving the introduction of the system of axes where it does not exist
In trying to describe what translation is: “…figure shifts along the axis (y-axis and x-axis) to new
coordinate either left or right, or up and down”, as if figure can’t shift diagonally. Hence the thinking
can be limited to vertical or horizontal shifts only, resulting in errors when describing translation. For
example, in describing the situation in the diagram below, a student stated: “Triangle ABC in my
understanding has been translated vertically to form triangle CEF”. It seems as if this student could not
recognise that the triangle has shifted ‘diagonally’ (Soon’s level 1).

395
In describing the transformation below, 93% of the students who correctly identified this as a reflection
referred to it as reflection “across the x-axis”.

For these learners the horizontal line CB (and possibly the grid lines) meant that the diagram was
drawn on a system of axes.
The assumption of the existence of the system of axis was prevalent with other transformations
involving reflection, even when there were no grid lines. For example, regarding the transformation
below, there were statements like: “The card is reflected on the x- axis (or y- axis) because x-axis is like
horizontal and y-axis is like vertical”

Again, this kind of thinking limits students’ reasoning to vertical or horizontal reflection only. This can
be evidenced in a question where students were asked to reflect a triangle on any of its sides to create
a quadrilateral.

Despite the fact that 18 out of the 82 students did not attempt this question (set at Soon’s level 2), all
students (43) who successfully drew the correct quadrilateral (kite) reflected the triangle on the
horizontal side, rather than on the other slanted/diagonal sides, which would also create some kites.
Even though this is not an error, it does, however, limit the thinking and reasoning of the students,
especially because all those who tried reflecting on the other slanted sides (13 students) could not
perform the reflection correctly, while a few others totally did not follow the instruction for the
question.

The system of axes was drawn in order to determine the centre of rotation and angle of rotation.
Seemingly the assumption is that the centre of rotation has to be the point of origin (0; 0), as displayed
in the diagram below:

396
Errors involving language/terminology issues
Language related errors were eminent and cutting across all types of transformation problems or
questions students had to work on. Some of these errors have already been implied within other errors
discussed above.
The use of imprecise terminology was prevalent. For example:

“…card has shifted from vertical to horizontal” , creating misleading notions because in
transformation geometry, a “shift” is associated with a translation rather than the dictionary meaning
of ‘move’, ‘budge’, ‘upside down’.
“…rotation of counter anti-clockwise”, meaning anti-clockwise or counter-clockwise.
“Translation is an act of uniform movement”, for lack of better or appropriate words to use.
In the statement below, direction words such as down, up, left, right are used to imply a “turn” in this
context.

Errors involving misinterpretation of instructions were displayed. For example:

“Draw/locate angle of rotation on the diagram” was interpreted as “draw or write the size of the angle
on the diagram”
“Describe” is reduced to mean “name”. For example, in a question that required students to describe
two different transformations that would move a figure onto its image, 54% of the students only
mentioned the type of transformation without describing it.
If a figure has to be “moved 1 more unit” this can be interpreted as “skip one unit and then place it” as
seen in the example below. Although not many students (11) made this error, it is worth mentioning
because it affected their ability to correctly perform the required reflection.

The instruction: “Draw the image when the figure is translated/reflected/rotated ...” is taken to mean
something different from “Translate/reflect/rotate the figure ...”. For example, the student whose work
appears below was able to correctly follow the instruction on question 4 below but not the one on
question 6, even though in both cases the line of reflection was correctly identified:

397
During interviews the student explained, even though not convincingly enough, that when asked “to
reflect the figure” she thought she was supposed to “show how it would look like in the mirror”, not to
draw its image. This gives some insight into why 27 students never attempted or gave no response to
question 6 above, 42 got it wrong (most of them simply reflected the figure on the y-axis - perhaps
also because of the misconception about reflection on the axes only, as discussed earlier on) and only
13 students gave the correct answer.
Problems with inappropriate use of vocabulary in relations to transformations, suggest that these
students could not achieve Soon’s level 2.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of this study, BEd Foundation Phase students grapple with the learning of the
topic of transformation geometry and display a range of misconceptions which need to be addressed in
order to give them a better change at teaching geometry to their own learners in the future. The
findings suggest that these students lack both conceptual and procedural knowledge that would enable
them to fully comprehend and competently teach the topic. For example, their inability to discover
properties of changes to figures resulting from specific transformations, or to work appropriately with
correct and relevant rules and descriptions is an indication of lack of understanding of the concepts
involved in transformation geometry. These findings concur with the suggestion that students have
“deficiencies of mastery prerequisite skills, facts and concepts and errors due to the application of
irrelevant rules or strategies” (Egodawatte 2011: 36).
Students’ failure to visualise certain transformations that are performed suggests that they did not get
enough opportunity to practise visualisation skills during their schooling years. This was acknowledged
by students during interviews, when they mentioned that their teachers at high school insisted on
them using the rules for transformation geometry because then “once you ‘keep the rules in your
head’ you will never go wrong”. This concurs with the notion that teachers may teach topics whose
conceptual demand they do not appreciate, perfunctorily (Chick, 2002). Students’ lack of visualisation
skills implies that some students do not possess level 1 characteristics as depicted in Soon’s (1989) van
Hiele like levels of achievement in transformation geometry. Therefore it is not surprising that none of
the students in the study possessed characteristics that are required for level 4 reasoning.
As recommendation towards addressing the misconceptions identified in this study, teachers should
provide students with opportunities to experience hands – on manipulatives that will give them plenty
of practice to manipulate in order to get visual perspectives of how the shapes move as they are
translated, reflected or rotated. This should be achieved before any rules are learned or emphasized.
Thereafter, students should work on step by step instructions on how to relate the transformed shapes
with the properties of both objects and images so that they can discover and master the rules
themselves. The bigger study from which this paper is based deals with an intervention programme
that aims to address the misconceptions identified, by conducting a series of lessons based on the van
Hiele phases of learning. These phases entail a step by step approach that helps students in gradually
advancing from one level of geometric thinking to the next higher level during classroom teaching.
Lastly, teachers and learners could both benefit if teachers could make effort to familiarize themselves
with their students’ errors and misconceptions and work on strategies to improve them. This is
especially crucial in the South African context where error analysis and diagnosis are not part of
courses offered in pre-service teacher education programmes (Luneta, 2008). To this effect, I would
recommend the analytic, process-oriented approach to error analysis as suggested by Rach, Ufer &
Heinze (2013).

REFERENCES

398
Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2014). An assessment of the readiness of Grade 10 learners for geometry in the
context of Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) expectation. International Journal of
Educational Science, 7(1), 29 -39.
th
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Research Education (6 ed.). Australia: Wadsworth
Thomson Learning.
Atebe, H.U. (2008). Students’ van Hiele levels of geometric thought and conception in plane geometry: a
collective case study of Nigeria and South Africa. Doctoral dissertation. Rhodes University,
Grahamstown.
Bansilas, S., & Naidoo, J. (2012). Learners engaging with transformation geometry. South African Journal of
Education, 32(1).
Bernstein, A. (Ed.). (2013). Mathematics outcomes in South African schools. What are the facts? What should be
done? Report published by The Centre for Development and Enterprise.
Chick, H. (2002). Evaluating pre-service teachers’ understanding of middle school mathematics. Mathematics
education in the South Pacific: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia.
Department of Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). Mathematics- Foundation
Phase. Pretoria: DBE.
Egodawatte, G. (2011). Secondary school students’ misconceptions in algebra. A thesis submitted in conformity
with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. University of
Toronto.
Evbuomwan, D. (2013). An investigation into the difficulties faced by Form C students in the learning of
transformation geometry in Lesotho secondary schools. Masters’ thesis, University of South Africa.
Feza, N., & Webb, P. (2005). Assessment standards, van Hiele levels, and grade seven learners’ understandings of
geometry. Pythagoras, (62), 36-47.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. SUNY. New York
Herholdt, R., Sapire, I. (2014). An error analysis in the early grades mathematics – a learning opportunity? African
Journal of Childhood Education, 4(1), 42-60.
İlaslan, S. (2013). Middle school mathematics teachers’ problems in teaching transformational geometry and
their suggestions for the solution of these problems. Masters’ dissertation, Middle East Technical
University.
Luneta, K. (2008). Error discourse in Fundamental Physics and Mathematics: perspectives of students’
misconceptions. ICET International Year Book, pp. 385-400.
Luneta, K. (2014). Foundation Phase student teachers’ knowledge of Space and Shape. South African Journal of
Childhood Education, 4(3), 71-86.
Luneta, K. (2015). Understanding students’ misconceptions: an analysis of final Grade 12 examination questions
in geometry. Pythagoras, 36(1), 1-11.
Luneta, K., & Makonye, J. (2010). Learner errors and misconceptions in elementary analysis: a case study of a
Grade 12 class in South Africa. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 3(3), 35 -46.
Ma, L. (2010). Knowing and teaching Elementary Mathematics: teachers’ understanding of fundamental
mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Makonye, J.P. (2011). Learner mathematical errors in introductory differential calculus tasks: a study of
misconceptions in the senior certificate examinations. Doctoral dissertation , University of Johannesburg.
Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 58–69.
th
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: a conceptual introduction (5 ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Panaoura, G., & Gagatsis, A. (2009). The geometrical reasoning of primary and secondary school students. In The
6 th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education: Working Group 5,
Geometrical Thinking, pp. 746-755.
Rach, S., Ufer, S., & Heinze, A. (2013). Learning from errors: effects of teachers’ training on students’ attitudes
towards and their individual use of errors. PNA, 8(1), 21-30.
Schnepper, L. C., & McCoy, L. P. (2013). Analysis of misconceptions in high school mathematics. Journal for
Teacher Research, 15(1), 1-7.
Burger, W.F. & Shaughnessy, J.M. (1986). Characterising the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), (pp. 31-48).
Siyepu, S. W. (2005). The use of van Hiele theory to explore problems encountered in circle geometry: A grade 11
case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
399
Soon, Y. (1989). An investigation of van Hiele-like levels of learning in transformation geometry of secondary
school students in Singapore. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Florida State University.
Usiskin Z (1982). Van Hiele levels of achievement in secondary school geometry. Final report of the Cognitive
Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project, University of Chicago.
Van der Sandt, S. (2007). Pre-service geometry education in South Africa: a typical case? IUMPST: The Journal, 1,
1-9.
Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: a theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic Press.
VanLehn, K. (1990). Minds bugs: the origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Waterman, H., Tillen, D., Dickson, R., & de Koning, K. (2001). Action Research: a systematic review and
assessment for guidance, Health Technology Assessment, 5 (23).
Winter, R., & Munn-Giddings, C. (2001). A Handbook for Action Research in Health and Social Care. London:
Routledge.
Wiens, A. (2007). An Investigation into careless errors made by 7th Grade mathematics students. Masters
dissertation. Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Wu, D. B., & Ma, H. L. (2006). The distributions of van Hiele levels of geometric thinking among 1st through 6th
graders. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková, (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 5 (pp. 409-416).
Xiaobao, L. I. (2006). Cognitive analysis of students’ errors and misconceptions in variables, equations, and
functions. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

400