Effectiveness of Using Circle Geometry (CG-Board) Strategy in Learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four Students’ Performance

American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2019
A J H S S R J o u r n a l P a g e | 155
American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR)
e-ISSN :2378-703X
Volume-03, Issue-01, pp-155-163
www.ajhssr.com
Research Paper Open Access
Effectiveness of Using Circle Geometry (CG-Board) Strategy in
Learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four Students’
Performance
R. L. Zuraida1
, R. Nancy2
, R. N. Farah3
1,2,3
Mathematics Department, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia
Corresponding author: R. L. Zuraida
ABSTRACT: The study aims to determine the effectiveness of Circle Geometry Board (CG-Board) strategy
in learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four students’ performance. The Nonequivalent Control Group
Pretest-Posttest Quasi Experimental design was used. Fifty-two students from two classes were selected using
the cluster probability sampling and were divided equally to control and experimental group. A three-week
intervention was conducted using prior knowledge test, pre-test and post-test. The independent t-test was used to
describe the students’ performance and the differences between the teaching strategies used. From the analysis,
the treatment group students’ performance gained significantly higher than the control group. The study shows
that the CG-Board strategy can improve the effectiveness of teaching and facilitating of Circle Geometry among
students.
KEYWORDS: Circle Geometry, Students’ Performance, Physical Manipulative, Teaching Strategies
I. INTRODUCTION
Geometry is one of many components taught in the Malaysian syllabus. Though these students were
taught since the primary school, they still have problems in recognizing the shapes of the geometry, finding the
perimeter and the area of a given shape. This problem persists in their secondary schooling where the students
have problem in visualizing and solving problems in Circle Geometry [1]. The students’ prior knowledge from
Form 2 and Form 3 has deterred the students’ ability to perform in the Circle Geometry questions. The students
fail to grasp the geometry concept, reasoning and solving problems [2], [3]. The students were unable to link
more than one concept in geometry [4]. Based on [3], the students who face problem in learning geometry has
lead students to acquire poor performance. The teaching methods used too, have influenced the students’
performance [5].
Interactive tools like Geometer’s Sketchpad, GeoGebra and Cabri have been introduced to help their
visualization and these interactive tools have brought positive learning achievements [6]. However, [7],
emphasize that the students need to understand the mathematics before they interact with the software. Many
schools in Malaysia too, face problem of not having updated computers in their classrooms to use this software.
Therefore, the teacher shows the use of this software using projectors and not helping the students to find the
knowledge hands-on. Since the students do not explore their own understanding then the students are
incompetent to visualize and explore the concept of geometry. These have led students to have misconception in
learning Circle Geometry as they prefer to observe and memorize the concept [8]. Their minimal understanding
has made them not to understand the definition [9] and properties of geometry [10].
The students are also not creative and logical in solving geometry problem [11]. The students solely
rely on the text book and their teacher for the knowledge. Learning geometry from the text book hinders the
students’ problem-solving skills and the development of their spatial thinking, analyzing and conceptualizing
the ideas of geometry [12]. They tend to provide irrelevant information which is not useful in problem solving
[13]. This is because the students have forgotten the Circle Geometry concept learnt in previous years. They are
unable to give reason for each statement made to solve a problem [14].
The students’ learning attitude towards mathematics is linked with the teaching method used by the
teachers. The students neither interact with their friends nor the teacher to find out the answer. Conventional
teaching method in teaching Circle Geometry has caused students not to explore or discover their own
knowledge concretely as they become passive and mere observer [15], [16], [17]. Teachers too, do not
implement on the use of any kind of manipulatives as their teaching tools because of their time constrain in their
daily lesson [18], [19], [20].

1.1 Purpose and Objective of the Research
The purpose and the objective of the study is to develop CG-Board and activity book to be used in
teaching and learning Circle Geometry among Form Four students and to study the effectiveness of the usage of
CG-board strategy on the students’ performance compared to conventional strategy.
1.2 Research Questions
The following are the research questions:
i. What is the difference between the mean scores of the control and treatment group students’ performance
in Circle Geometry before any intervention is given in learning Circle Geometry?
ii. What is the difference between the mean scores of the control group students’ performance after a
conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry is used and the treatment group students’ performance
in Circle Geometry after the CG-Board is used in learning Circle Geometry?
iii. Are there any significant changes in the mean scores of the control group students’ performance before
and after the conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry?
iv. Are there any significant changes in the mean scores of the treatment group students’ performance before
and after the CG-Board strategy is used in learning Circle Geometry?
1.3 Hypotheses
The hypotheses below are developed according to the research questions.
H0i: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the control group students’ and the
treatment group students’ performance in Circle Geometry before any intervention is implemented.
H0ii: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the control group students’ performance
after a conventional strategy is implemented and the treatment group students’ performance after the
CG-board strategy is used in learning Circle Geometry is implemented.
H0iii: There are no significant changes in the mean scores of the control group students’ performance before
and after the conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry is implemented.
H0iv: There are no significant changes in the mean scores of the treatment group students’ performance
before and after CG-board strategy for Circle Geometry is implemented.
II. METHODOLOGY
1.4 Research Design and Sample
This study employed the Nonequivalent Control Group Pretest-Posttest Quasi Experimental. The
experimental group went through an intervention where they learnt Circle Geometry using the CG-Board
strategy for three weeks while the control group, learnt mathematics using the conventional strategy.
Participants for this study were the Form Four students selected from a school in Perak. Two classes consisting
of 52 students were selected from a population of 114 students. One class was assigned as an experimental
group while the other became the control group. The experimental and control group consists of 26 students
each.
1.5 Research Instruments
This study used three instruments. The first instrument used is the prior knowledge test. This test
functions to find out the students’ ability in understanding the Circle Geometry concepts thought in Form 2 and
Form 3. This prior knowledge test is also used to determine the mean scores of each class of the population.
Once the two classes of similar mean scores are identified, both classes were tested once more using the pre-test.
This instrument helps the researcher to find out the mean score of both control and treatment group. After three
weeks of intervention, the post-test was given to both groups. Both pre-test and post-test have items with similar
learning objectives. Both tests consist of 20 problems solving structured questions.
III. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT
Inferential statistics were used in the analysis of the collected data. The first two research questions
were analyzed using the independent t-test while the next two questions used the paired sample t-test. The
hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significant.
1.6 Research Question 1: What is the difference between the mean scores of the control and treatment
group students’ performance in Circle Geometry before any intervention is given in learning Circle Geometry?
Based on Table 1 and 2, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of the control
and treatment groups. Based on the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the significance value is greater
than 0.05. Therefore, the null of the Levene’s test is accepted and we can conclude that the variance of the
control and the treatment group are not significantly different. In the t-test for Equality of Means, the p-value is
greater than 0.05. We can conclude that, there is no significant difference in the scores for control group

(M=13.92, SD=2.331) and the treatment group (M=13.92, SD=2.115) conditions; t(50)=0.000, p= 1.000. Since
the value of p is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
Table 1 Mean Scores for Control and Treatment Group for the Pre-test
Groups Descriptive Statistics Statistics
Control
Treatment
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
13.92
2.331
0.457
13.92
2.115
0.415
Table 2 Independent Samples Test for the Pre-test
Statistics
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Significance
t
df
Significance (2-tailed)
0.160
0.691
0.000
50
1.000
1.6.1 Analyzing the Answers of the Control Group and Treatment Group for the Pre-test
Based on Table 3, we know that the students’ ability is almost the same. The students could not answer
questions five, six, eight, fourteen, nineteen and twenty.
In question five, the students couldn’t identify the angles subtended at the circumference or the centre.
When the students couldn’t answer the question five, they indirectly couldn’t answer question eight. As question
eight, asks the students to identify the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by the chord.
In question six, the students are asked to name the interior opposite angles of the cyclic quadrilateral.
Many of them are able to identify the interior angle of the cyclic quadrilateral but fail to find the opposite angle
of the cyclic quadrilateral.
In question fourteen, nineteen and twenty are questions related to a tangent to a circle. Since the
students have not learned this concept of Circle Geometry yet, the students could not answer the questions.
On the contrary, the students could answer questions one, two, four, seven and fifteen. Seven out of
twenty-six students from the control group and nine out of twenty-six students from the treatment group could
explain what a circle is (Question 1). Almost all the students from the control group and treatment group could
identifying a cyclic quadrilateral (Question 2). This is the basic for the concept of cyclic quadrilateral. Eight
students from the treatment group could answer question seven on identifying the exterior angles and the
corresponding interior opposite angles of cyclic quadrilateral. Finally, eight students from the control group and
six students from the treatment group could answer question fifteen. It is surprising to see that the students are
able to verify the relationship between the angle formed by the tangents and the chord with the angle in the
alternate segment which is subtended by the chord, even though they have not learned yet. When investigated, it
is found that the students literally guessed the answer based on the question in the pre-test as the diagram shows
a formation of perpendicular bisector.
Many questions were attempted by the students; however, they were unable to complete the given task
as they do not remember what they have learned previously.
Table 3 Control Group and Treatment Group Question Analysis Based on Pre-test
Question
Number
Learning Outcomes from Pre-test Control
Group
Treatment
Group
1. Identifying circle as a set of point equidistant from a fixed point 7 9
2. Identifying cyclic quadrilateral 17 21
3. Identifying tangent to a circle 3 1
4. Identifying parts of a circle (centre, circumference, radius, diameter,
chord, arc, sector and segment)
4 14
5. Identifying angle subtended by an arc at the centre and at the
circumference of a circle
0 0
6. Identifying interior opposite angle of cyclic quadrilateral 0 0

7. Identifying the exterior angles and the corresponding interior opposite
angles of cyclic quadrilateral
1 8
8. Identifying the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by the
chord through the contact point of the tangent
0 0
9. Determining that angles subtended at the circumference by the same arc
are equal
4 1
10. Determining that angles subtended at the circumference, at the centre by
arcs of the same length are equal
3 0
11. Determining the relationship between angle at the centre and angle at the
circumference subtended by an arc
0 3
12. Determining the relationship between interior opposite angles of cyclic
quadrilateral
1 0
13. Determining the relationship between exterior angles and corresponding
interior opposite angles of the cyclic quadrilateral
0 1
14. Making inference that the tangent to a circle is a straight line perpendicular
to the radius that passes through the contact point
0 0
15. Verifying the relationship between the angle formed by the tangents and
the chord with the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by
the chord
8 6
16. Determining the size of an angle subtended at the circumference in a
semicircle
2 2
17. Solving problems involving angles subtended at the centre and angles at
the circumference of circles
3 0
18. Solving problem involving angles of cyclic quadrilateral 1 2
19. Solving problem involving tangent to a circle 0 0
20. Solving problem involving tangent to a circle and angle in alternate
segment
0 0
1.7 Research Question 2: What is the difference between the mean scores of the control group students’
performance after a conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry is used and the treatment group students’
performance in Circle Geometry after the CG-board is used in learning Circle Geometry?
Based on Table 4 and Table 5, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean
scores of the control and treatment groups. Based on the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the
significance value is smaller than 0.05. Therefore, the null of the Levene’s test is rejected and we can conclude
that the variance of the control and the treatment group are significantly different. In the t-test for Equality of
Means, the p-value is smaller than 0.05. We can conclude that, there is significant difference in the scores for
control group (M=18.96, SD=4.025) and the treatment group (M=24.04, SD=1.843) conditions; t(35.038)=-
5.848, p= 0.001. Since the value of p is smaller than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4 Mean Scores for Control and Treatment Group for the Post-test
Groups Descriptive Statistics Statistics
Control
Treatment
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
18.96
4.025
0.789
24.04
1.843
0.362
Table 5 Independent Samples Test for The Post-test
Statistics
Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Significance
t
df
12.502
0.001
-5.848
35.038
0.001

1.7.1 Analyzing the Answers of the Control and Treatment Group for the Post-test
From Table 6, the students can recognize parts of the circles. This is seen in the question one and
four, where most of the students could identify circle as a set of point equidistant from a fixed point and identify
parts of circles like centre, circumference, radius, diameter, chord, arc, sector and segment.
In understanding and using the properties of angles in circles, the students did show some
improvement in certain questions. The students still have problem in identifying angle subtended by an arc at
the centre and at the circumference of a circle. Both control group and treatment group were not able to answer
this question five in pre-test and in post-test. The students did show improvement in determining the angles
subtended at the circumference by the same arc. They could understand that the values of angles subtended from
the same arc are the same. In question ten and eleven, the students did not show much improvement comparing
to the pre-test. They still have difficulty in determining the angles that is subtended at the circumference or at
the centre by arcs of the same length are equal and determining the relationship between angle at the centre and
angle at the circumference subtended by an arc. When the students could not recognize the properties of an arc
subtended from the circumference or centre, they indirectly could not determine the size of an angle subtended
at the circumference in a semicircle. Only three students from the control group and five students from the
treatment group could answer the question number sixteen. However, none of them could solve problem
involving the angle subtended at the centre and angles at the circumference of circles (Question 17).
In measuring the students understanding and using the properties of angles in circles, question two,
six, seven, twelve, thirteen and eighteen were given. In question two, twenty students from control group and all
twenty-six students from treatment group could identify the cyclic quadrilateral. The students did not improve
much in question six. The students still have problem in identifying interior opposite angles of cyclic
quadrilateral. When the cyclic quadrilateral is drawn differently with two lines in the cyclic quadrilateral, they
could not name the angles correctly. In question seven, fourteen students from the treatment group could answer
the question. Analyzing the question, it is found that most of the students who failed to answer this question can
identify the exterior angle but could not identify the correct corresponding interior opposite angle for it. Since
the students could not do question seven, they did not perform well in question twelve and thirteen. Not many
students could determine the relationship between interior opposite angles of cyclic quadrilateral and they were
unable to determine the relationship between exterior angles and corresponding interior opposite angles of
cyclic quadrilateral.
In the fourth learning objective of understanding and using the concepts of tangents to a circle, the
students in the control group and treatment group did fairly well. In question three, almost all the students from
control group and treatment group could identify tangent to a circle. Although, they are able to identify tangent
to a circle, the students from the control group and treatment group while doing the pre-test and post-test failed
to make inference that the tangent to a circle is a straight line perpendicular to the radius that passes through the
contact point. In question fifteen, the students from both groups did show improvement from the pre-test. Eleven
students from the control group and seventeen students from the treatment group could verify the relationship
between the angle formed by the tangents and the chord with the angle in the alternate segment which is
subtended by the chord. Looking at the question three, fourteen and fifteen, we can conclude that the students
have problem in making inference using words or sentences.
Finally, the fifth learning objective is to understand and use the properties of angles between tangent
and chord to solve problem. The questions relating to the objectives are question eight, nineteen and twenty. The
students did not show much improvement comparing to the post-test. These questions are related with the
second and the third learning objectives. Since the students have difficulties in grasping the concept of
understanding the properties of angles in circles and cyclic quadrilateral, they failed to use their knowledge to
answer the questions in the fifth learning objectives. Only about two to three students from control group and
treatment group could identify the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by the chord, solve
problem involving tangent to a circle and solve problems involving tangent to a circle and angle in the alternate
segment.
Table 6 Control Group and Treatment Group Question Analysis Based on Post-test
Question
Number
Learning Outcomes from Post-test Control
Group
Treatment
Group
1. Identifying circle as a set of point equidistant from a fixed point 20 25
2. Identifying cyclic quadrilateral 20 26
3. Identifying tangent to a circle 16 25
4. Identifying parts of a circle (centre, circumference, radius, diameter,
chord, arc, sector and segment)
17 22
5. Identifying angle subtended by an arc at the centre and at the
circumference of a circle
0 0
6. Identifying interior opposite angle of cyclic quadrilateral 0 5

7. Identifying the exterior angles and the corresponding interior opposite
angles of cyclic quadrilateral
1 14
8. Identifying the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by the
chord through the contact point of the tangent
0 2
9. Determining that angles subtended at the circumference by the same arc
are equal
6 9
10. Determining that angles subtended at the circumference, at the centre by
arcs of the same length are equal
0 2
11. Determining the relationship between angle at the centre and angle at the
circumference subtended by an arc
0 4
12. Determining the relationship between interior opposite angles of cyclic
quadrilateral
1 3
13. Determining the relationship between exterior angles and corresponding
interior opposite angles of the cyclic quadrilateral
0 4
14. Making inference that the tangent to a circle is a straight line
perpendicular to the radius that passes through the contact point
0 0
15. Verifying the relationship between the angle formed by the tangents and
the chord with the angle in the alternate segment which is subtended by
the chord
11 17
16. Determining the size of an angle subtended at the circumference in a
semicircle
3 5
17. Solving problems involving angles subtended at the centre and angles at
the circumference of circles
0 0
18. Solving problem involving angles of cyclic quadrilateral 2 3
19. Solving problem involving tangent to a circle 1 2
20. Solving problem involving tangent to a circle and angle in alternate
segment
1 3
1.8 Research Question 3: Are there any significant changes in the mean scores of the control group
students’ performance before and after the conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry?
From Table 7 and Table 8, it is shown that a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare the pre-
test and post-test mean scores after the conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry is implemented. There
is a significant difference in the mean scores for pre-test (M=13.92, SD=2.331) and in the mean scores for the
post-test (M=18.96, SD=4.025) conditions; t(25)=-6.009, p= 0.001. With the p value is less than 0.05, the null
hypothesis can be rejected. The standard deviation of the control group post-test is larger than the pre-test. This
shows that the marks in the post-test has a large variation in the mark comparing to the pre-test. The students
have shown some improvement with the mean score increasing by 5.04 from the pre-test. These results suggest
that the conventional strategy of learning Circle Geometry does have an effect to the students’ performance after
three weeks of intervention.
Table 7 Mean Scores for Control Group for the Pre-test and Post-test Using Paired Sample Statistics
Control Group’s Descriptive Statistics Statistics
Pre-test
Post-test
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
13.92
2.331
0.457
18.96
4.025
0.789
Table 8 Paired Sample Test for Control Group
Statistics
Paired differences
t-test
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
t
df
-5.038
4.275
0.838
-6.009
25
0.001

1.9 Research Question 4: Are there any significant changes in the mean scores of the treatment group students’
performance before and after the CG-board strategy is used in learning Circle Geometry?
From Table 9 and Table 10, it is shown that a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare the pre-
test and post-test mean scores after the CG-board is used in learning Circle Geometry. There is a significant
difference in the mean scores for pre-test (M=13.92, SD=2.115) and in the mean scores for the post-test
(M=24.04, SD=1.843) conditions; t(25)=-19.294, p= 0.000. With the p value is less than 0.05, the null
hypothesis can be rejected. The students have shown some improvement with the mean score increasing by
10.12 from the pre-test. These results suggest that using the CG-board strategy in learning Circle Geometry does
have an effect to the students’ performance after three weeks of intervention.
Table 9 Mean Scores for Treatment Group for the Pre-test and Post-test Using Paired Sample Statistics
Treatment Group’s Descriptive Statistics Statistics
Pre-test
Post-test
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
13.92
2.115
0.415
24.04
1.843
0.362
Table 10 Paired Sample Test for Treatment Group
Statistics
Paired differences
t-test
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standard Error Mean
t
df
-10.115
2.673
0.524
-19.294
25
0.000
IV. DISCUSSION
The CG-board was developed based on the idea of locus. The CG-board gives the students a hands-on
experience as they use the physical manipulative to develop their understanding in Circle Geometry concept. As
the CG-board cannot be a standalone manipulative, therefore, the activity book was developed to assist the
learning of Circle Geometry concept.
As the lessons of Circle Geometry concept were divided into twelve lessons, and with an average
lesson conducted for thirty-five to seventy minutes, students were able to grasp the concept of Circle Geometry.
The students’ ability to participate and learn Circle Geometry through hands-on learning, have brought few
positive impacts on them. As the lesson in the activity book were done as task-based, the students need to work
together with their group mate to construct and deduce a Circle Geometry concept [21]. The use of CG-board is
suitable for them as most of the students in the treatment group have short attention span [22]. The use of
physical manipulative like CG-board has helped to increase the mean scores of the treatment group on retention
and problem solving [23]. This kind of learning gave the students the opportunity to engage in the learning that
they could visualize the Circle Geometry concept [22].
When the CG-board is used, the students communicate and work out the problems in the activity
book in their respective group [24]. The treatment group students were no more mere observers as they take the
challenge to participate in the group activity to answer the questions in the activity book with the use of CG-
board. The activity book has many diagrams that help the students to visualise. The visualisation that is seen in
the activity book and built in the CG-board can enhance the students understanding better than the conventional
method [25].
As the CG-board strategy was something new, the students were enthusiastic in using the CG-board
and the activity book. The CG-board strategy gave the students a concrete display of the abstract mathematical
ideas [26].

V. CONCLUSION
The research was done to investigate the effectiveness of using CG-board strategy for Circle
Geometry for the Form Four students. Through the three weeks intervention given to the treatment group
showed a greater mean score comparing to the control group. While going through their pre-test and post-test
too, this research has confirmed that the students were facing problem in learning the Circle Geometry concepts.
The students were facing problem of misconception and lack of prior knowledge in Circle Geometry, they were
demotivated to learn geometry, they were also not creative in exploring the questions regarding Circle Geometry
and solely rely on text book and teacher for knowledge.
Using this physical manipulative like CG-board has helped students to engage in their learning
process. As using physical manipulatives can increase students’ motivation to learn Mathematics, the students
should be given more opportunity to use it. I believe that the students could grasp the Mathematics concept
better when they are directly involved in finding the answers. The teachers must be more the willing to use
manipulatives to teach as it produces higher achievement in mathematics lesson taught without using
manipulatives [27], [28].
VI. RECOMMENDATION
This study has attributed to some recommendations that may be implemented for the improvement of
the students’ performance in geometry. Below are some suggestions for further research.
Firstly, the use of CG-board should be implemented early. The students should be given the
opportunity to use the CG-board as early as they are in Form Two. Form Two is chosen because the Circle
Geometry concept is learned by the students subsequently from Form Two, Three and Four. By using the CG-
board early, we do not need to waste time teaching the students or the teacher on how to use all the tools
presented in the CG-board strategy. Therefore, a research on an early study on the usage of CG-board should be
done.
The teachers should be more open minded to try out new teaching method. The teachers of Malaysia
should be more innovative and motivated for their own betterment. Sticking to the old way of teaching is
definitely not suitable for this generation as they are easily bored with routine learning. Seeing something new
every day from the teacher’s effort could actually encourage students to learn better. A study on the use of
different teaching styles and techniques should be research further.
Finally, the students too, should be given the opportunity to explore their own knowledge, while
doing this research, I have seen that the students were much interested to explore the Circle Geometry concept
on their own without the help of their teachers. The students only ask for assistance when in doubt if the
outcome of their deduction on a Circle Geometry concept is right. The teacher too, showed encouragement for
students who explored earlier and gave the students the responsibility to teach and explain to their fellow
classmates who are struggling to learn a Circle Geometry concept. This indirectly helps the teacher to conduct
the learning as the number of students in the class is large. A research on effectiveness of student mentor can be
done to see if it has any improvement to the students’ performance.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Piggott, and L. Woodham, Mathematics Teaching 207, Association of Teachers of Mathematics,
2011. Retrieved from https://nrich.maths.org/6447
[2] M. T. Battista, Geometry Results from the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study, Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 1999, 367-373.
[3] N. Idris, The effect of Geometers’ Sketchpad on the performance in geometry of Malaysian students’
achievement and van Hiele geometric thinking. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 1(2),
2006, 169-180.
[4] D. Tall, and M. R. Razali, Diagnosing students’ difficulties in learning mathematics. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 24(2), 1993, 209-222.
[5] C. S. Udeinya, and O. S. Okabiah, Special method of teaching science subjects. Enugu: ABIC
Publishers, 1991.
[6] K. K. Bhagat, and C. Y. Chang, Incorporating GeoGebra into Geometry learning-A lesson from India.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 2015, 77-86.
[7] A. L. Sacristán, N. Calder, T. Rojano, M. Santos-Trigo, A. Friedlander, H. Meissner, and E.
Perrusquía, The influence and shaping of digital technologies on the learning–and learning trajectories–
of mathematical concepts. In Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain (Springer,
Boston, MA, 2009), 179-226.
[8] R. Mehdiyev, Exploring students’ learning experiences when using a Dynamic Geometry Software
(DGS) tool in a geometry class at a secondary school in Azerbaijan, doctoral diss., Universiteit van
Amsterdam, 2009. Retrieved from https://esc.fnwi.uva.nl/thesis/centraal/files/f907846476.pdf

[9] L. E. Neel-Romine, S. Paul, and K. G. Shafer, Get to know a circle. Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, 18(4), 2012, 222-227.
[10] A. Özerem, Misconceptions in geometry and suggested solutions for seventh grade students. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 2012, 720-729.
[11] C. C. Gloria, Mathematical Competence and Performance in Geometry of High School Students.
International Journal of Science and Technology, 5(2), 2015, 53-69.
[12] M. B. Altabano, Mastery of Mathematics Concepts by the High School Freshmen of PSPC, Mambusao,
Panay State Polytechnic College, 2002. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis).
[13] M. Ndlovu, and A. Mji, Pedagogical implications of students' misconceptions about deductive
geometric proof. Acta Academica, 44(3), 2012, 175-205.
[14] T. Adolphus, Problems of teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools in Rivers State,
Nigeria, International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(2), 2011, 143-152.
[15] K. Reed, Grade 11 students' understanding of circle geometry in a computer environment, doctoral
diss., University of Western Ontario, 1996. Retrieved from
summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/7089/b1802757x.pdf
[16] P. Wagner, Higher education in an era of globalization: What is at stake. Globalization and higher
education, 2004, 7-23.
[17] T. R. Fabiyi, Geometry concepts in mathematics perceived difficult to learn by senior secondary school
students in Ekiti State Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOS-JRME), 7,
2017, 83-87.
[18] J. M. Joyner, Using Manipulatives Successfully. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(2), 1990, 6-7.
[19] R. N. Farah, M. Tarmizee, K. A. Rahman and R. L. Zuraida, Orthogonal Projector Kit (OPK) as a new
teaching aids with innovation ICT in teaching and learning 21st century. Journal of Fundamental and
Applied Sciences, 10(3S), 2018, 338-344.
[20] R. N. Farah, N. Bahirah and R. L. Zuraida, Manipulative Kit Used In Teaching And Learning Topic
Addition And Subtraction In 21st Centuries. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research,
9(11A), 2018, 29508-29513.
[21] M. A. Fazekas, Teaching High School Geometry With Task and Activities, doctoral diss., Louisiana
State University, 2011. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1538&context=gradschool_theses
[22] A. Özdemir, An investigation on the effects of project-based learning on students’ achievement in and
attitude towards geometry, Middle East Technical University Graduate School of Natural and Applied
Sciences, Ankara, 2006. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis).Retrieved from
http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/3/12607166/index.pdf
[23] E. J. Sowell, Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for research in
mathematics education, 1989, 498-505.
[24] P. Cooper, Problem-solving in geometry in collaborative small group settings: how learners
appropriate mathematical tools while working in small groups, doctoral diss., University of the
Western Cape, 2011. Retrieved from
https://etd.uwc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11394/4248/Final%20thesis%20Phadiela%20Cooper%20953256
5.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[25] A. Erlina, and E. Zakaria, Kesan Penggunaan Perisian GeoGebra Ke Atas Keupayaan Penyelesaian
Masalah dan Pencapaian Matematik Pelajar (The Effect of Using GeoGebra on Students’ Problem
Solving Ability and Mathematics Achievement). Jurnal Pendidikan Matematik, 2(1), 2014, 51-64.
[26] S. Olkun, and Z. Toluk,Teacher Questioning with an Appropriate Manipulative May Make a Big
Difference. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 2, 2004, 1-11.
[27] J. L. Parham, ‘A meta-analysis of the use of manipulative materials and student achievement in
elementary school mathematics’. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1983.
[28] M. N. Suydam, and J. L. Higgins, Activity-Based Learning in Elementary School Mathematics:
Recommendations from Research. ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental
Education, College of Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1977.

Effectiveness of Using Circle Geometry (CG-Board) Strategy in Learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four Students’ Performance

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effectiveness of Using Circle Geometry (CG-Board) Strategy in Learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four Students’ Performance (20)

More from AJHSSR Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Effectiveness of Using Circle Geometry (CG-Board) Strategy in Learning Circle Geometry towards Form Four Students’ Performance