Man In India, 96 (1-2) : 489-499 © Serials Publications

A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL

OF GEOMETRIC THINKING IN LEARNING 3D GEOMETRY
AMONG HIGH ACHIEVERS
Rohani Abd Wahab, Abdul Halim Bin Abdullah, Mohd Salleh Bin Abu,
Mahani Bt Mokhtar and Noor Azean Bt Atan

Since geometry mainly comprises of three-dimensional (3 D), visual spatial skills and level of
geometric thinking are essential in the teaching and learning of Geometry. In addition, it is also
important in other fields, such as engineering, design, graphics, film, science, chemistry, business
and arts. Visual spatial skills comprise the ability to imagine, illustrate and describe visual process
happens in the mind. Visual spatial skills and levels of geometric thinking have been claimed to
cause difficulties in the learning of geometry. Therefore, this case study was conducted to assess
students’ visual spatial skills and level of geometric thinking among high achievers. A total of
133 respondents participated in this study, which consisted of 62 male and 71 female respondents.
The study used a testing tool which can measure visual spatial skills performance. The testing
tool measured five visual spatial abilities, such as combining 2-D, rotation, view, manipulation,
and cut. Visual spatial skills were tested using a standard Spatial Visualization Mental Test:
Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests of Rotation of Development (PSVT: D), Purdue Spatial
Visualization Tests of Rotation (PSVT: R), Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests of View (PSVT:
V), Transformation 3D to 2D test (T3D2DT), and Mental Cutting Test (MCT), while the van
Hiele Geometric Thinking Test (vHGT) was employed to find out the level of students’ geometric
thinking. Data in the forms of frequency, mean, and percentage were presented using graphs and
tables. The results indicated that the students’ levels of mental ability in rotation, view, and cut
were low. On top of that, the students’ level of geometrical thinking was found at a level of
concern as majority of the students were at lowest level (Level L1). Findings retrieved from the
study are described in detail in this paper.

Introduction
Learning geometry has started from pre-school up to high school and continued at
higher levels in the chosen field of higher educations. Mastery of geometry concepts
will stimulate students’ interest to learn mathematics wider and challenging (Jones,
2002). Students are taught the concept of geometric shapes and space as early as
during preschool (Curriculum Development Division, 2010). At this stage, students
are introduced to a variety of 2 Dimensional and 3 Dimensional geometric shapes,
including the relationships between them. Basic introduction to shapes, sizes, and
space, as well as identification of series of geometry and geometric properties are
emphasized in primary schools, while the use and relationship between series and
properties of geometry are directly and indirectly emphasized in the syllabus at
secondary level. This is explained by the ratio of the syllabus contents from Form

Address for communication: Rohani Abd Wahab, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
490 MAN IN INDIA

One until Form Five, whereby 42% of the 60 topics are geometry topics (BPK,
2000).
On top of that, Jonassen (2003), Jones and Mooney (2004), and Presmeg (2006)
asserted that learning geometry should be based on actual situations. Besides,
Kyttälä and Lehto (2008) and Noraini (2006) also emphasized the involvement of
visual spatial in developing mental representation. However, the teaching of
geometry in Malaysia has been reported as being too dependent on the content
given by the teachers (Noor Izana, 2012). Meanwhile, Salleh, Bilal and Tan (2012)
disclosed a disappointment when they revealed that teachers relied solely on the
contents of textbooks, although progress in geometrical thinking depends on
students’ experiences with the concept of geometry and their ability to achieve
visual spatial skills and not solely on maturity. Furthermore, Abdul Halim and
Effandi (2013) explained that the current classroom teaching and learning activities
have failed to make students associate what they have learnt with their real-life
situations. In fact, approaches and teaching methods are still confined to traditional
teacher-centered approach. In addition, the geometry learning activities are
uncreative and uninteresting since teachers only use blackboard to explain theorems,
definitions, and concepts (Noraini, 2000; Abdul Halim & Effandi, 2013). This
phenomenon has also been reported by Mullis et al., (2012) in TIMSS 2011, which
claimed that 83% of Malaysian teachers were dependent on textbooks in teaching
and learning mathematics, 55% applied memorization, and 64% through
explanation. This dependency offers students limited opportunity to improve their
visual spatial skills and to develop their geometrical thinking. This finding
contradicts the educational goals of 3D geometry, as the teaching and learning of
geometry should expose students to the awareness of space (spatial), geometric
thinking, the ability to describe visualization, to build knowledge and understanding,
as well as the ability to use the features and geometry theorem (Jones, 2002; NCTM,
1979).
In addition, Noraini (2006) and Abdul Halim and Effandi (2013) disagreed
with the practice of teachers who help students to solve given problems by showing
methods and algorithms, as well as intensive training, hoping that the students will
be familiar with the questions. However, unfortunately students will be just
memorizing them without really understanding the concepts of geometry. Apart
from that, Noraini (2009) verified that the emphasis on 3D geometry concepts
should require students to draw a picture of an object and to identify the
distinguishing characteristics with existing experience. Consequently, these skills
require visual interpretation as the geometry problems are presented in 2-D on the
question paper. Therefore, failing to analyze 3D geometric information, which is a
drawing in isometric view on paper, the student will have difficulty in understanding
the questions which involve solid geometry (Norani, 2006). Previous studies have
indicated that among the difficulties faced by students in learning 3D geometry
 A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL... 491

include (a) the ability to determine the number and to calculate the area of solids
given (Owens & Outhred, 2006; Tan, 2011), (b) the ability to identify and
interconnect 3D objects and 2D (Cohen, 2003), (c) the ability to represent 3D
objects (Gutierrez, 1992; Ben-Chaim, Lappan, & Houang, 1989; Noraini, 2006),
(d) the ability to identify the characteristics of a 3D form and compare 3D shapes
(Gutierrez, 1992), and (e) the ability to compile 3D cube arrays (Ben-Chaim et al.,
1989; Norani, 1998; Battista, 1999).
Problem Background
Many studies which were conducted on the difficulties of learning geometry were
focused on determining the level of progressive thinking and wondering profile
geometry in numerous geometrical problems. Lawrie, Pegg and Gutierrez (2000)
clarified that generally van Hiele’s model has been used in the studies. The Model
of Level Thinking van Hiele Geometry outlines the hierarchical level at which
students’ proceed to higher level as their ideas of geometry progress. This model
finds loopholes of reliance in traditional teaching approach and provides a way to
improve the focus and the emphasis on students’ geometrical thinking in order to
obtain the appropriate level in mastering high school geometry successfully.
Furthermore, Noraini (2009) and Abdul Halim and Effandi (2013) recognized that
students’ have weakness in reasoning skills and therefore it creates difficulties for
them. Thus, many students are unable to obtain the required information from the
data given, possess difficulties to interpret the answers and to draw conclusions.
In addition, Konyaliog and Aksu (2012) reported that the difficulties in
understanding the concept of geometry and solving problems in geometry among
students were due to their weakness in visual spatial skills. This idea is supported
by Chiang (2012), who believed that the difficulties in visual spatial skills are the
reasons for students to have problems in learning geometry and become a significant
cause of low achievement in mathematics. Meanwhile, Bender (2008) stated that
students who experience problems or difficulty in analyzing, interpreting, and
understanding what they see and hear will fail to process a given problem. On top
of that, Sorby (2006), Alias, Black and Gray (2002), and McGee (1979) defined
visual spatial skills as a fraction of cognitive abilities involving mental manipulation,
rotation, tightening, or pictorial displays in a block. Hence, visual spatial skills are
essentials in learning geometry. Besides, traditional teaching and learning approach
tend to force students to memorize and less emphasis is given on how students should
think, draw a picture (visual), and subsequently decide the progress to be made. This
mode of learning will often fail to bring satisfaction to students (Noraini, 2007).
Furthermore, learning geometry approach based on traditional method is
irrelevant nowadays since it contributes towards the failure to foster students’ higher-
order thinking skills. Besides, Abdul Halim and Effandi (2013) and Battista (2001)
believed that the traditional approach in learning geometry which emphasizes on
492 MAN IN INDIA

memorization do not promote students to think and reason. Therefore, Battista (2002)
asserted that the objective of traditional learning has failed to give satisfaction and
does not offer meaningful learning among students. This failure has been clarified
by Mullis et al. (2012), who reported that only 33% of Malaysian students answered
correctly the geometry questions in TIMSS 2011 international examination. As for
the cognitive domain in geometry, Malaysian students’ performance were below the
international average score, whereby only 45% of students mastered the cognitive
domain knowledge, 38% in cognitive domain of application, and only 33% in
cognitive domain of reasoning. Therefore, further studies need to be conducted to
identify appropriate geometry learning approaches to address this issue based on the
two objectives of learning geometry outlined by National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (1979), namely to develop geometric thinking and to improve visual
spatial skills, which refers to the perceptions of space and the real world.
Although most of the studies in the field of geometry in Malaysia were
conducted by Norani (2009), Abdul Halim and Effandi (2013), Tan (2011), Chiang
(2012), and Zaid (2014) recognized the importance of visualization skills to be
applied in teaching approaches, they did not conduct in depth investigation on
how to improve the effect of teaching approaches towards students’ visual spatial
skills. Besides, previous geometry researchers were more focused on using visual
approach, namely a dynamic software technology in order to enhance students’
geometrical thinking skills. However they failed to assess the effectiveness of the
software towards students’ visual spatial skills. In fact, only a few studies in
Malaysia were carried out to demonstrate teaching and learning approaches based
on visualization using dynamic enhanced visual spatial skills in improving the
understanding of geometry 3D. The studies were conducted by Abdul Rashid
(2008), Azlina and Lok (2010), and Suhaila (2008). Consequently, the studies did
not focus on the progress of students’ geometry thinking level.
Based on the information and evidence mentioned earlier, there are indications
that the learning difficulties experienced by Malaysian students in learning geometry
are associated with visual spatial skills specifically related to three-dimensional
objects. There are also indications that the learning difficulties experienced by
Malaysian students in learning geometry are associated with weakness and
inconsistency in van Hiele levels of geometric thought. The question is, whether
learning difficulties in geometry also occurs among high achievers in Malaysia?
Moreover, in order to overcome learning difficulties in geometry, the reliability
and validity of these indicators have been studied rigorously and systematically
via follow-up action. Therefore, the researchers conducted a case study to assess if
the problems and difficulties in geometry for visual spatial skills and geometric
thinking also occurred among high achievers. This case study was conducted at
one boarding school in Johor. These students are excellent students in UPSR and
PT3. They come from all the states in Malaysia. The high-achieving students are
 A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL... 493

enrolled in boarding schools across Malaysia and their performances are monitored
and guided. This effort is to produce first-class workers, who excel academically
and competent in various skills. However Van de Wall et al. (2010) pointed out that
high achievers’ students are still not considered successful, if they fail to capitalize
their visual spatial skills and possess low level geometric thinking. Moreover,
Malaysian Ministry of Education in its initial report of PPPM (2012) disclosed its
apprehensiveness over increasing students’ achievements in UPSR, PMR/ PT3 every
year, however the results for the assessment of TIMSS is decreasing .
Purpose of Study
This study assessed if the learning difficulties in geometry which was related to
students’ visual spatial skills and students’ geometrical thinking also occurred
among high achievers. The study focused on students’ mental ability to combine
two-dimensional plane, rotate, view, manipulate, cut-off, as well as to look into
the level of geometrical thinking. This case study intended to answer the following
research questions:
i) What is the level of visual spatial skills among high achievers?
ii) What is the level of geometric thinking among high achievers?

Research Methodology
A total of 133 form four students comprising of 62 boys and 71 girls from a
secondary school for high achievers in Johor was involved in this case study. The
instrument consisted of five domains of visual spatial ability were used in this
research had already existed and widely used by researchers on visual cognition
such as Onyancha and Kinsey (2007) and Prieto and Velasco (2002). The
instruments were based on standard criteria for spatial ability, as suggested by
Sorby (2006) and manipulation test (namely T3D2DT) developed by Safarin (2009).
Hence, in order to measure a student’s ability in merging 2-D mentally, Purdue
Spatial Visualization Test For Development (PSVT: D) was employed. Meanwhile,
Purdue Spatial Visualization for Rotation Test (PSVT: R) was used to measure the
ability to rotate mentally, whereas to measure a student’s ability to describe an
object from the viewpoint of mental assigned, the Test of PSVT: V was used.
Besides, Mental Transformation test for 3D to 2D (T3D2D) was used to measure
the ability to manipulate mentally, while Mental Cutting Test (MCT) measured
mental cut abilities. In addition, van Hiele Geometric Thinking (vHGT) Test was
applied to measure the level of students’ geometric thinking. The vGHT test has
been used widely by researcher such as Usiskin (1982), Abdul Halim (2013) and
Vojkuvkova and Haviger (2013).
Students’ scores for each spatial ability tests were based on the number of
correct answers. However, the scores were transformed into percentages to facilitate
data analysis. After that, the Level of Schedule Spatial Ability was referred to
494 MAN IN INDIA

define the level of students’ visual spatial skills based on the percentages adapted
from Sorby (2006), as depicted in Table 1. As for the vGHT test, Usiskin (1982)
declared that when respondents answered correctly at least 3 of 5 items at any
level in vHGT, the respondents were considered to have mastered it. Furthermore,
to define the level of students’ geometrical thinking, the scores obtained by the
students were calculated based on the weighted scores established by Usiskin
(1982), as portrayed in Table 2.

TABLE 1: INTERPRETATION OF SCORES FOR THE LEVEL OF VISUAL

SPATIAL SKILLS
Score (%) Category Level
61-100 Above average score Strong
41-60 Slightly below the average score Moderate
0-40 Below average score Weak
Source: Sorby (2006)

TABLE 2: WEIGHTED VAN HIELE GEOMETRIC THINKING TEST SCORES

Item no. Level of van Hiele Score
Geometry Thinking Test
1,2,3,4,5 L1 1
6,7,8,9,10 L2 2
11,12,13,14,15 L3 4
16,17,18,19,20 L4 8
21,22,23,24,25 L5 16
Source: Usiskin (1982)
For example:
Students who obtained the scores at levels 1, 3, and 4, their score was 13 (1 + 4 + 8).

Moreover, in order to facilitate the development of students’ geometrical

thinking in the categories above, Usiskin (1982) described 32 scores, starting with
score 0 to 31. Then, Abdul Halim (2011) explained that in order to determine
students’ level of geometric thinking, the table of van Hiele’s level of force should
be referred to, as displayed in Table 3.

TABLE 3: TABLE OF VAN HIELE’S LEVEL OF FORCE

van Hiele Level of Force Score total weight
*L1 0,2,4,8,16,18,20 or 24
L1 1,5,9,17,21 or 25
L2 3,11,19 or 27
L3 6,7,22 or 23
L4 13,14,15,29,30 or 31
Not in any weighted 10,12,26 or 28
Level *L1 is categorized for phase under L1
Source: Usiskin (1982)
 A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL... 495

Findings
The findings in this study showed that the lowest skill concerning mental ability
was mentally cut by 91% in the weak category and afterwards, the ability to view
mentally with 47% in the weak category, as reflected in Table 4. Based on Figure
1 above, the mean score of visual spatial skills for the combination of 2D and
Manipulation was at a moderate level. Meanwhile, it is clear that mental cutting
test was the lowest mean attained among the higher achievers.

TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS

Level Spatial Ability Test
PSVT:D PSVT:R PSVT:V T3D2D MCT
No % No % No % No % No %
Weak 28 21 50 37.6 63 47.4 20 15 121 91
Moderate 48 36.1 53 39.8 44 33.1 59 44.4 10 7.5
Strong 57 42.9 30 22.6 26 19.5 54 40.6 2 1.5

Figure 1: Mean distribution of visual spatial skills

Figure 2: Distribution of visual spatial skills mastery level

The analysis portrayed in Figure 2 shows that 26.3% of the students did not
master all five components in visual spatial skills and only 0.8% dominated the
five components of visual spatial skills. On the other hand, majority of the high-
achieving students only mastered one component at 31.6%.
Next, as for the level of geometric thinking, it was revealed that almost all the
high-achieving students (66.9 %) successfully mastered the first level only 24.8%
attained the second level of analysis, while almost all failed to reach the third level
of informal deduction, as presented in Table 5.
496 MAN IN INDIA

TABLE 5: LEVEL OF VAN HIELE’S GEOMETRIC THINKING

Level Number Percentage
*L1 10 7.5
L1- Visualization 89 66.9
L2-Analyze 33 24.8
L3- Informal Deduction 1 o.8
*L1- level below L1

Discussion and Conclusion

Visual spatial skills and geometrical thinking should be highlighted in geometry
classes as the objectives outlined by the NCTM (1079). The results of the case
study identified the weaknesses in visual spatial skills among high achievers,
especially mentally cut, mentally rotation, and mentally view. Meanwhile, the level
of geometrical thinking was also at a level of concern, as majority of the students
were at level L1, and only 8% were at L3. Form Four students were supposed to be
at level L4 (Formal deduction), based on the matrix provided by NCTM (2000).
Accordingly, based on the findings of this case study, the present approach of
geometry teaching and learning, has failed to emphasize students’ visual spatial
skill and geometrical thinking. Therefore, efforts to make improvements in the
teaching and learning of geometry should be emphasized particularly in assisting
the students to overcome their weaknesses in visual spatial skills and geometrical
thinking. Hence, in order to overcome the problem of learning geometry involving
3D, the researcher believes that it is necessary to design and develop meaningful
learning using dynamics software called SketchUp Make, which has not been
empowered in Malaysian schools for. This notion supports the view of Gutiérrez
et al. (2013) and Kurtulus and Uygan (2010) that the integration of multimedia
environment which supports 3D and media literacy can accelerate the development
of spatial perception. Apart from that, Batistta (2002) also believed that dynamics
software can encourage students to move to higher levels of thinking.
References
Abdul Halim Abdullah & Effandi Zakaria (2013). 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(Ifee 2012), 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.740.
Abdul Halim Abdullah & Effandi Zakaria. (2011). Skema Pemarkahan dan Penentuan Tahap
Pemikiran Dalam Ujian Geometri Van Hiele. EDUPRES 2011. Skudai, Johor, 14-15
Disember 2011.
Azlina mohd kosnin & Lok Yian Lin. (2010). Keberkesanan Perisian Geometer SketchPad untuk
Tajuk Pembinaan Geometri dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Matematik.
Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Rahman. (2008). Pendekatan Tiga Dimensi Multimedia Bagi
Meningkatkan Kemahiran Visualisasi Spatial dalam Tajuk Pelan dan Dongakan. Tesis
Sarjana:Unpublished.
 A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL... 497

Alias, M., Black, T. R and Gray, D.E. (2002). Effect of instruction on spatial visualization
ability in civil engineering students. International Education Journal, 3(1), 1-12. http//
iej.cjb.ne
Battista, M. (1999). Fifth graders’ enumeration of cubes in 3D arrays: Conceptual progress in an
inquiry-Based Classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 417-
448.
Battista, M.T., (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Teach. Child.
Math., 8: 333-339.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
Chiang Kok Wei (2012). Easing Learning Difficulties in Circles Among Fourth Formers Students
Using van Hiele-Oriented Learning Instructions .M.Ed (Maths): Unpublished.
Contero et al., (2005). Improving Visualization Skills in Engineering Education. Journal for
Computer Graphics in Education, 24-31.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence.
London7 Routledge and Kegan.Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent
problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-381.
Jones, K. (2002), Issues in the Teaching and Learning of Geometry. In: Linda Haggarty (Ed),
Aspects of Teaching Secondary Mathematics: perspectives on practice. London:
RoutledgeFalmer. Chapter 8, pp 121-139. ISBN: 0-415-26641-6.
Jones, K. and Mooney, C. (2003). Making Space for Geometry in Primary Mathematics. In: I.
Thompson (Ed), Enhancing Primary Mathematics Teaching. London: Open University Press.
3-15.
Kurtulus, A., & Uygan, C. (2010). The effects of Google Sketchup based geometry activities
and projects on spatial visualization ability of student mathematics teachers. World
Conference on Learning, Teaching and Administra- tion (pp. 384–389). Cairo, Egypt:
Elsevier Ltd
Kyttälä, M. (2008). Visuospatial working memory in adolescents with poor performance in
mathematics: variation depending on reading skills. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 273–
289.
Kyttälä, M., & Lehto, J. (2008). Some factors underlying mathematical performance: The role of
visuospatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 22,77–94.
Konyalioğlu, A. C., Aksu, Z., & Þenel, E. Ö. (2012). The preference of visualization in teaching
and learning absolute value. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology, 43(5), 613-626.
Laporan Awal awal Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2015(2012). Kementerian
Pendidikan Malaysia.
Martín Gutiérrez, J., Gil, F. A., Contero, M., & Saorín, J. L. (2013). Dynamic three dimensional
illustrator for teaching descriptive geometry and training visualisation skills. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, 21(1), 8-25.
McGee, M. G.(1979). Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic,
hormon and neurological influences.Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889-918.
498 MAN IN INDIA

Mullis, Michael O. Martin, Pierre Foy, and Alka Arora. (2012). Timss 2011 International Results
in Mathematics Ina.: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of
Education, Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA, USA and International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) IEA Secretariat Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.(2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston: VA.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1998). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston: VA.
Noraini Idris. (2007). The Effect of Geometers’ Sketchpad on the Performance in Geomtry of
Malaysian Students’ Achievement and van Hiele Geometric Thinking. Malaysian Journal
of Mathematical Sciences, 1(2), 169- 180.
Noraini,I., & Tay, B. L. (2004). Teaching and Learning of Geometry: Problem and Prospects.
Masalah Pendidikan, 27. Pp. 165-178. ISSN 0126-5024.
Noraini Idris. (2009). The Impact of Using Geometers’ sketchpad on Malaysian Students’
Achievement and van Hiele Geometric thinking. Journal of Mathematics Education.
December 2009. vol 2, no 2, pp 94 -107 (ISI/SCOPUS Cited Publication).
Noraini Idris. (2005). Pedagogy in Mathematics Education. Second Edition. Kuala Lumpur:
Utusan Publication Sdn. Bhd.
Noraini, Idris (1998). Spatial Visualization, Field Dependence/Independence, Van Hiele Level,
and Achievement in Geometry: The Influence of Selected Activities for Middle School
Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Ohio State University.
Noor Izana Abdul Halim (2012). Mengatasi Kesukaran Pembelajaran Dalam Topik Bulatan di
Kalangan Pelajar Tingkatan dua menggunakan Geoemetr’s Sketchpad. Unpublished master
thesis, Faculty Education, University of Technology, Malaysia.
Onyancha, R., & Kinsey, B. (2007). The effect of engineering major on spatial ability
improvements over the course of undergraduate studies. InFrontiers In Education
Conference-Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without
Passports, 2007. FIE’07. 37th Annual (pp. T1H-20). IEEE.
G. Prieto & A. Velasco. (2002). Predicting Academic Success from Visualization Test Scores.
Journal for Geometry and Graphics.Volume 6. No. 1, 99-109.ISSN 1433-8157.
Polly, D. (2011). Developing Students’ Higher-order Thinking Skills (HOTS) through technology-
rich tasks. Educational Technology, 51(4), 20–26.
Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the learning of mathematics,
Vol. 6, No. 3 .42-46.
Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. Handbook
of research on the psychology of mathematics education, 205-235.
Salleh M. A, M. S., Bilal, M., & Tong, 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. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.010
Strong,S. & Smith, R. (2002). Spatial Visualization: Fundamentals and Trends in Engineering
Graphics. Journal of Industrial Technology. 18.
Sorby, S. A. (2006). Developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. Australasian
Associations for Engineering Education. 2006: 679-688.
 A CASE STUDY ON VISUAL SPATIAL SKILLS AND LEVEL... 499

Tan Tong Hock (2011). Assisting Primary School Children to Progress Through the van Hiele’s
Levels of Geometry Thinking Using Google Sketch-Up.M.Ed. (Maths):Unpublished.
Tay, B. L. (2003). A van Hiele-based instruction and its impact on the geometry achievement of
Form One students. M Ed. diss., University of Malaya : Unpublished.
Van De Walle, K. S. K. & J. M. B.-W. (2010). Elementary & Middle School Mathematics.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1959/1984). Last article written by Dina van Hiele-Geldof entitled: Didactics
of geometry as learning process for adults. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes and R. Tischler (eds.).
English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele.
School of Education, Brooklyn, NY: School of Education, Brooklyn College, 215–233.
Vojkuvkova, I., & Haviger, J. (2013). The van Hiele Geometry Test at Czech Secondary School.
WDS’13 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, Part I, 112–115. ISBN 978-80-7378-250-4.
Wilder, J. S. & Mason, J. (2005). Developing Thinking in Geometry. London: Paul Chapman
Educational Publishing.