Assessing the readiness of pre-service mathematics teachers to learn Euclidean geometry
Ernest F. Akosah 1 * , Francis O. Boateng 1, Jacob Arhin 1, Benjamin A. Obeng 1
More Detail
1 Akenten Appiah – Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Ghana
* Corresponding Author


The introduction of the four year Bachelor of education mathematics curriculum in 2018 in the Ghanaian colleges of education brought back Euclidean geometry with its formal proof. It also implied that all learners needed to perform at level 4 (Deduction: with formal proof) of the van Hiele levels in Euclidean geometry in all grades in the CoE.  This study reports on the assessment of the readiness of pre-service teachers’ [PTs] to learn Euclidean geometry in Ghana based on the van Hiele model of geometrical thinking levels. Data for this study were generated from 302 PTs in a CoE in the volta region of Ghana selected through convenience sampling. The study made use of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques for data collection. The quantitative data revealed that a significant proportion of PTs demonstrated basic geometrical thinking, with a predominant presence at Level 1(Visualization) and Level 2(Analysis). Qualitative insights underscore a reliance on visual properties and informal language in identifying geometric figures. Among PTs, a moderate level of readiness was observed. The study suggests a need for targeted instructional interventions to enhance formal understanding of geometric figures among PTs and reinforces the importance of geometric terminology for improved readiness among PTs’. Acknowledging limitations and proposing future research directions, this study contributes valuable insights for geometry education in teacher preparation programs.



  • Abu, M. S., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2013). Improving the levels of geometric thinking of secondary school students using geometry learning video based on Van Hiele theory. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 2(1), 16-22.
  • Adjei, P. O., & Owusu-Sekyere, E. (2017). Prospects and challenges of the new mathematics teacher education curriculum in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 72-79.
  • Akayuure, P., Asiedu-Addo, S. K., & Alebna, V. (2016). Investigating the effect of origami instruction on preservice teachers spartial ability and geometrical knowledge for teaching. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(3), 198-209.
  • 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.
  • Anas, S. S. (2018).The geometric thinking levels of mathematics Psts in Northern Ghana Colleges of education. Researchjournali’s Journal of Mathematics, 5(3), 1-19.
  • Ankomah, B. (2020). Mathematics teaching and learning in multilingual Ghana: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(4), 301-315.
  • Armah, R.B., Cofie,P.O., & Okpoti , C. A. (2017). The geometric thinking levels of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Higher Education Research, 2(3), 98-106.
  • Armah, R.B., Cofie,P.O., & Okpoti , C. A. (2018). Investigating the effect of Van Hiele phase based instruction on PSTs geometric thinking. International journal of Reaserch in Education and Science, 4(1), 314-330.
  • Asemani, E., Asiedu-Addo, S.K. & Oppong, R.A. (2017). The geometric thinking level of senior high school students in Ghana. International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Studies, 5(3), 1-8.
  • Baffoe, E. &Mereku, D. K. (2010). The van Hiele Levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8(3), 51-61.
  • Bal, A.P. (2014). Predictor variables for primary school students related to van Hiele geometric thinking. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(1), 259-278.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Coping mechanisms for handling emotional stress in pediatric pain management: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Child Health Care, 10(3), 205-217.
  • Burger , W. F. (1985). Geometry. The Arithmetic Teacher, 32(6), 52-56.
  • Burger, E. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele Levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31–48.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Mixed methods research. In L. Cohen, L. Manion, & K. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in education (pp. 31-50). Routledge.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise ıntroduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
  • Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele Model of development of geometric thought. In M. M. Lindquist, & P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1987 Year book (pp. 1-16). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Debrah, A. A., & Baafi, E. (2018). An investigation into pre-service mathematics teachers' level of preparedness to teach Euclidean geometry in Ghana. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 9-18.
  • Dillon, M. I. (2018). Geometry through history. Springer.
  • Dowuona-Hammond, J. (2015). An analysis of the revised Bachelor of Education curriculum in Ghana: the case of mathematics. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31), 83-93.
  • Feza, N. & Webb, P. (2005). Assessment standards, van Hiele levels and grade 7 learners’ understanding of geometry. Pythagoras, 6(2), 36-47.
  • Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The Van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 3-19.
  • George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Pearson.
  • Genz, R. L. (2006). Determining high school geometry students’ geometric understanding using van Hiele levels: Is there a difference between standards -based curriculum students and non standards-based curriculum students? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
  • Ghana Education Service. (2019). Bachelor of education curriculum for colleges of education: Mathematics. Author.
  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.
  • Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A guide for early education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 351-367.
  • Halat, E. & Şahin, O. (2008). Van Hiele Levels of pre- and ın service turkish elementary school teachers and gender related differences in geometry. The Mathematics Educator,11(1/2), 143-158.
  • Kaya, D. & Aydin, H. (2016). Elementary mathematics teachers’ perceptions and lived experiences on mathematical communication. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(6), 1619-1629.
  • King, L. C. C. (2003). The development, ımplementation and evaluation of an ınstructional model to enhance students’ understanding of primary school geometry [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Curtin University of Technology, Perth.
  • Knight, K. C. (2006). An investigation into the van Hiele level of understanding geometry of pre-service elementary and secondary mathematics teachers [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Maine, Orono, ME.
  • Livet, M., Blanchard, C., & Richard, C. (2022). Readiness as a precursor of early implementation outcomes: an exploratory study in specialty clinics. Implementation science communications, 3(1), 94.
  • Ma, L.(1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Routledge.
  • Makara, K. A. (2019). Ghanaian pre-service mathematics teachers' preparedness to teach probability. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(2), 437-446.
  • Mason, M. (1998). The van Hiele Levels of geometric understanding. In L. McDougal (Ed.). Theprofessional handbook for teachers: Geometry (pp. 4–8). McDougal-Littell/Houghton-Mifflin.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2021). Principles to actions: ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
  • Mayberry, J. (1983). The Van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate pre-service Teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 58-69.
  • Meng, C.C. & Idris, N. (2012). Enhancing students’ geometric thinking and achievement in solid geometry. Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(1), 15-33
  • Meng C.C, & Sam, L. C. (2013). Enhancing primary pupils’ geometric thinking through phase-based instruction using the geometer’s sketchpad. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 2(8) 33-51
  • Moglianesi, M., & Harris, J. (2019). Euclidean geometry. StatPearls Publishing.
  • Pandiscio, E. A. & Knight, K. C. (2010). An investigation into the van Hiele levels of understanding geometry of preservice mathematics teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 21(1), 45-53.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third Edition). Sage.
  • Pegg, J. (1995). Learning and teaching geometry. In L. Grimison, & L. Pegg (Eds.), Teaching secondary school mathematics (pp. 87-103). Harcourt Brace.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2003): Research methods. Routledge/falmer.
  • Pegg J. & Davey, G. (1998). Interpreting student understanding in geometry: A synthesis of two models. In R. Lehrer, D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 109-133). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. University of Chicago Press.
  • Renne, C.G. (2004). Is a rectangle a square? Developing mathematical vocabulary and conceptual understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(5), 258-263.
  • Singmaster, D. (1982). Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries by Marvin Jay Greenberg. The Mathematical Gazette, 66(436), 172-173.
  • Siew, N. M & Chong, C. L. (2014). Fostering students’ creativity through van Hiele’s 5 phase-based tangram activities. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2), 66-80.
  • 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.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
  • Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
  • Tucker, L. R. (1955). The objective definition of simple structure in linear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20(3), 209-225.
  • Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(5), 342-354.
  • Van de Walle, J. A. (2001). Geometric thinking and geometric concepts. ın elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. Allyn and Bacon.
  • Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Press.
  • Vojkuvkova, I. (2012). The van Hiele model of geometric thinking. WDS’12 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, 1, 72-75.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.