Geometry

The Mathematics Educator
2020 Vol. 29, No. 1, 7–52
Making Sense of Geometry Education

Through the Lens of Fundamental Ideas:
An Analysis of Children’s Drawings
Ana Kuzle and Dubravka Glasnović Gracin
For many decades, the amount of geometry curriculum worldwide has
been cut, mathematics curricula have lacked diversity of geometrical
phenomena, and geometry teaching has been reduced to a somewhat
eclectic mix of activities. Recently, new trends have begun to counteract
these tendencies by framing new curricula around fundamental ideas. The
goals of this paper are threefold: (a) to present the structural elements of
a coherent geometry curriculum through the lens of fundamental ideas, (b)
to develop an analytical tool to determine the fundamental ideas of
geometry in children’s drawings, and (c) to provide insight into the images
primary grade students have of geometry. The results are discussed not
only with regard to the latter of these goals, but also with regard to their
theoretical and practical implications.
Geometry is one of the earliest established branches of

mathematics; it went through a period of significant growth,
particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries, becoming well-
known for its internal diversity, coherence, and richness (Jones,
2000). Nonetheless, geometry education did not parallelly
undergo the changes and growth in its content and structure. On
the contrary, in the past several decades, geometry seems to have
lost its position in school mathematics developing the reputation
of being the “problem child” of mathematics teaching (Backe-
Neuwald, 2000). At the same time the overall amount of
geometry has been reduced in many national curricula (e.g.,
Backe-Neuwald, 2000; Glasnović Gracin & Kuzle, 2018;
Mammana & Villani, 1998). Furthermore, some researchers
Ana Kuzle is Associate Professor of mathematics education in the Department of

Primary Mathematics Education at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her
scholarly interests include development of teaching quality in primary mathematics
teaching (i.e., problem solving, argumentation, metacognition), mathematical
knowledge for teaching, and classroom climate in mathematics lessons.
Dubravka Glasnović Gracin is an associate professor of mathematics education at
the Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Her research
interests are mathematics textbooks, task design, and material and social resources
for mathematics education.
(e.g., Franke & Reinhold, 2016; Mammana & Villani, 1998; Van
de Walle & Lovin, 2006) have made an observation that many
geometry curricula have been an eclectic mix of activities
without a clear and systematic structure in curriculum, and
curriculum focusing on learning terminology. Such trends affect
a quality geometry curriculum as it provides the structure for the
provision of quality teaching practices and students’ learning.
Despite the acknowledged necessity of teaching geometry
and its anchoring in the curricula (Franke & Reinhold, 2016;
Mammana & Villani, 1998; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006), there
are still great differences in the actual implementation. Those
discrepancies can still be found in the classrooms today. For
instance, Willson (1977) observed “very wide differences of
opinion about what is appropriate subject matter for school
geometry and about how to approach it” (p. 19). Hansen (1998)
suggested that the geometry curricula should encompass various
geometrical phenomena, such as knowledge of plane and space,
applications of geometry, presenting milestones in the
development of geometry as well as strengthening logical
thinking, and deductive reasoning. This diversity of topics in
geometry curricula had been especially advocated during ICME-
7 (1992) in Québec, which resulted in designing new curricula
in many countries worldwide (e.g., Croatia, Germany, and the
United States) that reflected the multi-dimensional view of
geometry applied to all grade levels (e.g., Franke & Reinhold,
2016; Glasnović Gracin & Kuzle, 2018; Kuzle et al., 2018; Van
de Walle & Lovin, 2006).
However, the diversity of topics still does not necessarily
guarantee linking the learned objects. Hansen (1998) discussed
the problem of lack of coherence in geometry curricula by listing
the isolated fragments that are being taught in geometry classes:
“small bits of polygon classification, some formulas to measure
various shapes, some incidence geometry, a little mentioning of
transformations, a few constructions, selected loci, introduction
to vectors, and finally dome analytic geometry” (p. 238). Thus,
geometry, as a mathematical discipline, offers huge
opportunities for diversity and richness in its teaching programs,
but these opportunities are still significant challenges to
geometry education. The author concluded that in students’ eyes
8
the geometry they should learn might look as a “kind of

inconsistent ‘bazaar’” (Hansen, 1998, p. 238). However, these
assumptions should be studied more in depth.
One of the trends to counteract the issues mentioned above
focuses on the idea of a coherent geometry curriculum by
framing it in terms of “overarching ideas” or fundamental ideas
(e.g., Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006; Wittmann, 1999). The value
of this idea resides upon having a coherent content framework,
which is characterized by a high degree of inner richness of
relationships, and by gradual and continuous development in
every grade (Rezat et al., 2014; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006).
Consequently, having a coherent geometry framework makes it
easier to do research that might answer the following questions:
• What geometrical concepts are being taught in geometry

lessons nowadays, and to what extent?
• What meanings do students assign to geometry?
• How do these develop over the course of schooling?
The main goal of the inquiry presented in this paper was to

provide insight into the images1 primary grade students have of
geometry by using participant-produced drawings. In order to
achieve this goal, the study first sought to identify the
fundamental ideas of geometry, and to develop an analytical tool
to determine the fundamental ideas of geometry in students’
drawings before focusing on students’ images of geometry.
Theoretical Framework
In this section, we first present the construct of fundamental

ideas and introduce different models of fundamental ideas of
geometry, with a special focus on the model of Wittmann
(1999). Mental images and image-based research using
drawings are then discussed. The section ends with the three
research questions that guided the study.
1 Here, we do not refer to an ordinary informal meaning of the word “image.”

Moreover, we do not use the terms “image” and “drawing” as synonyms. The
term image is defined later on in the paper.
9
Fundamental Ideas
As early as the late 1970s, researchers (e.g., Schweiger,

1992, 2010; Vollrath, 1978) were advocating structuring
mathematics curriculum around fundamental ideas, sometimes
called overarching ideas. For instance, Freudenthal (1973)
claimed that “Our mathematical concepts, structures, and ideas
have been invented as tools to organize the phenomena of the
physical, social and mental world” (p. 41). This term can be
interpreted in many different ways (e.g., Rezat et al., 2014).
Winter (1976) defined fundamental ideas as ideas that have
strong references to reality and can be used to create different
aspects and approaches to mathematics. Schweiger (1992)
defined a fundamental idea as a set of actions, strategies, or
techniques that (a) can be found in the historical development of
mathematics, (b) appears viable to structure curriculum
vertically, (c) seems suitable to talk about mathematics, and
answers the question what mathematics is, (d) makes
mathematical teaching more flexible and transparent, and (e)
possesses a corresponding linguistic or action-related archetype
in everyday life. In addition, fundamental ideas are characterized
by a high degree of inner richness of relationships, and by
gradual and continuous development in every grade (e.g., Rezat
et al., 2014; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006). In other words, each
fundamental idea represents an independent axis along which
competencies build up in a cumulative way.
One of the trends counteracting the decrease in geometry in
school mathematics, and the lack of both coherence and
diversity of geometry topics in school mathematics focuses on
the idea of structuring geometry curricula around fundamental
ideas as a means of curriculum development (e.g., Mammana &
Villani, 1998; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006; Wittmann, 1999).
For instance, Mammana and Villani (1998) listed several
different overarching ideas for the geometry curriculum for the
21st century, such as the idea of measurement, mapping,
projection and topology, the idea of geometric figures, simple
motions, and transformations, and the idea of connections to
arithmetic. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000), on the
10
other hand, provided a content framework for geometry

organized around shapes and properties, transformation,
location, and visualization (Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006).
Similarly, Wittmann (1999) proposed that school geometry be
organized around the following seven fundamental ideas: (a)
geometric forms and their construction, (b) operations with
forms, (c) coordinates, (d) measurement, (e) patterns, (f) forms
in the environment, and (g) geometrization (see Table 1). While
the fundamental ideas F1–F3 and F6 are specifically assigned to
geometry, the fundamental ideas F4, F5, and F7 are intended to
illustrate the connection to the content area of measurement,
algebra, and number and operations (Backe-Neuwald, 2000).
Table 1
Wittmann’s Fundamental Ideas of Geometry
Fundamental idea Description
F1: Geometric The structural framework of elementary geometric
forms and their forms is three-dimensional space, which is populated
construction by forms of different dimensions: 0-dimensional
points, 1-dimensional lines, 2-dimensional shapes,
and 3-dimensional solids. Geometric forms can be
constructed or produced in a variety of ways through
which their properties are imprinted.
F2: Operations Geometric forms can be operated on; they can be
with forms shifted (e.g., translation, rotation, and mirroring),
reduced or increased, projected onto a plane, shear
mapped, distorted, split into parts, combined with
other figures and shapes to form more complex
figures, and superimposed. In doing so, it is necessary
to investigate spatial relationships and properties
changed by each manipulation.
F3: Coordinates Coordinate systems can be introduced on lines,
surfaces, and in space to describe the location of
geometric forms with the help of coordinates. They
also play an important role in the later representation
of functions and in analytical geometry.
F4: Measurement Each geometric form can be qualitatively and
quantitatively described. Given units of measure,
length, area or volume of geometric forms as well as
angles can be measured. In addition, angle
calculation, formulae for perimeter, area, and volume,
and trigonometric formulae also deal with
measurement.
11
F5: Patterns In geometry, there are many possibilities to relate

points, lines, shapes, solids, and their dimensions in
such a way that geometric patterns emerge (e.g.,
frieze patterns).
F6: Forms in the Real-world objects, operations on and with them as
environment well as relations between them can be described with
the help of geometric forms.
F7: Plane and spatial geometric facts, theorems, and
Geometrization problems, but also a plethora of relationships between
numbers (e.g., triangular numbers) can be translated
into the language of geometry and described
geometrically, and then translated again into practical
solutions. Here, graph theory and descriptive
geometry (e.g., parallel projection) play an important
role.
Wittmann’s (1999) fundamental ideas of geometry are

aligned with ICME-7 study recommendations for new geometry
curricula (Mammana & Villani, 1998), which have been adopted
by many national curricula. Although mathematics curricula
worldwide have been reexamined due to various curricular
reforms (e.g., Glasnović Gracin & Kuzle, 2018), it is not clear
what influence this may have on images students have of
geometry, and whether students recognize the multi-
dimensionality of geometry and to what degree.
Drawings, Mental Images, and Image-Based Research

Using Drawings
In image-based research, visual methods, such as drawings

and photographs, are one of the crucial data collection tools.
With visual methods—opposed to surveys and interview
contexts which have shown not to be always reliable due to
participants’ young age (e.g., Einarsdóttir, 2007; Pehkonen et
al., 2016)—participants can express things that cannot be easily
verbalized (Hannula, 2007; Thomson, 2008), as visual
representation requires little or no language mediation. In
particular, drawings as a data tool in visual research have been
recognized as an alternative form of expression for young
students. Drawings can be understood as “visual data that can
give insight into how children view things” (Einarsdóttir, 2007,
p. 201). For young students, drawing is much more than a simple
12
representation of what they see before them; rather, students use

drawings—amongst other—“as a tool for understanding and
representing important aspects of their own personal, lived
experiences of people, places and things” (Anning & Ring,
2004, p. 26). Thus, drawings are not only effective because of
the richness of produced data, but also because of the quality and
uniqueness of the data providing a holistic insight into students’
everyday lives, lived experiences and their conceptions of
mathematics, and mathematics teaching (Einarsdóttir, 2007).
Additionally, Kearney and Hyle (2004) found that participant-
produced drawings appear to lead to a more succinct
presentation of participant experiences, as they inhibit viewing
drawings with adult eyes, and enable data triangulation. Still, a
drawing as a graphic representation is a construction which
cannot be mistaken for the real object, but rather stands for an
aspect of reality (Golomb, 1994).
According to Luquet (1927/2001), an image (“internal
model”) is the starting point of drawing imitation. Here, the
presence of a model cues the use of a child’s internal model to
produce a drawing. Furthermore, Luquet contends that the object
of interest must necessarily pass through the mind in “the form
of a visual image” before it can be translated onto a paper as a
drawing. In other words, a drawing is an expression of the
mental image. The extent to which it is similar or different from
the external model condition indicates how influential the
mental image is. A mental image can be defined in many
different manners depending on the theory. In cognitive science,
for instance, a mental image is defined as a representation of the
physical world (e.g., an object, an event, or a situation) in a
person’s mind (Eysenck, 2012) whose features are spatially and
temporarily organized (Kosslyn, 1988). From the perspective of
the theory of imagery, mental images are short-term memory
representations generated from long-term memory
representations that may be stored in a depictive (pictorial) or
propositional (symbolic, language-like) format, regardless of the
content (Kosslyn, 1980; Pearson & Kosslyn, 2015). In this
paper, the term “image” refers to mental representations of a
cognitive structure associated with a particular concept (i.e.,
geometry), built up over the years through various experiences,
13
which can be stored in both depictive and propositional format,

and possess different functional characteristics.
In the last two decades, drawings have been successfully
used to access students’ beliefs about mathematics (e.g., Rolka
& Halverscheid, 2006, 2011), the emotional atmosphere in
mathematics lessons (e.g., Laine et al., 2013; Tuohilampi et al.,
2016), and students’ conceptions of mathematics lessons with
respect to social and communicative aspects (e.g., Ahtee et al.,
2016; Pehkonen et al., 2016). Only a few studies (e.g., Glasnović
Gracin & Kuzle, 2018; Picker & Berry, 2000) focused on
students’ images of mathematical content, and mathematics
teaching and learning. For instance, Glasnović Gracin and Kuzle
(2018) conducted an explorative multiple case study with four
students (one student per grade level from Grades 2–5) focusing
on students’ fundamental ideas of geometry using Wittmann’s
model (1999). The results showed that the four primary grade
students mostly depicted the fundamental idea of geometric
forms and their construction. Independent of the grade level a
square, triangle, and circle disc were presented as the strongest
representatives of geometric shapes. Three participants also
illustrated several properties of geometric objects. In three cases,
the idea of measurement (i.e., length of a line segment,
perimeter, area, and volume) was also associated with the
participants’ image of geometry. The fundamental idea of
operations with forms (specifically, line symmetry) as well as
the fundamental idea of forms in the environment was depicted
by one participant only. The fundamental ideas of patterns and
coordinates were not present in the data. During the interview,
one participant’s drawing was shown to depict the idea of
geometrization. Thus, the results of the multiple case study
showed that the images the participants have of geometry are
strongly related to the fundamental idea of geometric objects and
their construction, while the fundamental ideas of operations
with forms, coordinates, patterns, and geometrization were
minimally represented, if at all. Glasnović Gracin and Kuzle
(2018) also reported on the utility of Wittmann’s model (1999)
when analyzing fundamental ideas in the children’s drawings.
Though different subcategories of some fundamental ideas
emerged, the sample was too small to develop a comprehensive
14
analytical tool. Furthermore, the framework showed weaknesses

with respect to clearly categorizing each drawn object to a
specific fundamental idea, and to reflecting new developments
in geometry curriculum. Thus, the general utility of the model as
a research tool appeared to be insufficient with respect to gaining
a thorough insight into images students have of geometry.
To summarize, drawings as a data tool in visual research
have made an alternative and complementary contribution to
conventional research approaches by providing researchers with
a less invasive technique when working with young students
(e.g., Einarsdóttir, 2007). They opened a nonverbal channel to
students’ images of mathematics, and mathematics teaching and
learning (Ahtee et al., 2016; Glasnović Gracin & Kuzle, 2018)
in a multi-dimensional and holistic manner. However, studies
focusing on the mathematical content in general as well on a
specific mathematical content, such as geometry, using drawings
are limited.
Research Questions
In order to gain insight into young students’ understanding

of geometry, coherent and viable models and techniques are
paramount. Wittmann’s framework (1999) illuminated students’
fundamental ideas of geometry on a global level (Glasnović
Gracin & Kuzle, 2018). However, this kind of classification does
not provide a comprehensive and thorough picture of students’
images of geometry. What concepts are students relating to each
fundamental idea of geometry, and to what extent? Thus, we first
needed to create an approach to analyze young students’
drawings in a comprehensive and holistic way. With this
achieved, it is possible to address the question of students’
images of geometry through the lens of fundamental ideas taking
Wittmann’s framework (1999) as a foundation, but at the same
time expanding on it on the basis of both the students’ data and
literature. With these goals in mind, the following research
questions guided the study:
15
1. How can an analytical tool be developed that would

provide insight into students’ images of geometry from
the perspective of fundamental ideas of geometry?
2. What fundamental ideas of geometry can be seen in the
primary Grade 3–6 students’ drawings?
3. What similarities and differences in students’ drawings
exist among elementary Grades 3–6 from the perspective
of fundamental ideas of geometry?
Method
Research Design and Subjects
For this study, an explorative qualitative research design

using participant-produced drawings was chosen. The study
participants were Grade 3 to 6 students. This age group was
optimal for the purposes of the study as this is an important
period for the development of geometric thinking (e.g.,
Mamanna & Villani, 1998; van Hiele, 1959/1984). In total 114
primary grade students2 from multiple urban schools in the
federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) participated
in the project (see Table 2). Typical case sampling as a type of
purposive sampling was utilized as a way of collecting rich and
in-depth data (Patton, 2002).
Table 2
Participant Sample
Grade Participants
3 25
4 33
5 28
6 28
2In the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg, primary education covers
Grades 1 to 6.
16
Data Collection Instruments
The research data consisted of (a) audio data, (b) document

review, and (c) a semi-structured interview. The audio data were
comprised of the students’ unprompted verbal reports during the
drawing process, and prompted verbal reports after the drawing
process. For the document review, an adaptation of the
instrument from the work of Rolka and Halverscheid (2006,
2011) was used. It involved drawing an individual image of
geometry. The students were given a blank piece of paper and
instructed to draw their image of geometry. In addition, the
students answered three questions, which were on the reverse
side of the sheet:
• In what way is geometry present in your drawing?

• Why did you choose these elements in your drawing?
Why did you choose this kind of representation?
• Is there anything you did not draw, but still want to say
about geometry?
Depending on the age of the student, these questions were

answered either orally or in written form. When answers were
given orally, the student answers were audio-taped, otherwise
the students wrote down their answers. After the student had
finished drawing, the drawing was used as a catalyst for a semi-
structured interview in accordance with participant-produced
drawing methodology (Kearney & Hyle, 2004). Multiple data
sources (i.e., data triangulation) were used to assess the
consistency of the results and to increase the validity of the
results (Patton, 2002).
Procedure and Data Analysis
The research data were collected in a one-to-one setting

between a student and the first author of the paper. It was briefly
explained to each student that we were interested in geometry.
Each student was given a blank piece of A4 paper with the
following assignment: “Imagine you are an artist. A good friend
asks you what geometry is. Draw a picture in which you explain
17
to him or her what geometry is for you. Be creative in your

ideas.” The students took as much time as needed, usually about
10 to 15 minutes. Afterwards, the student was asked to answer
the questions on the reverse side of the sheet. If a student had
difficulties reading the questions or writing his or her answers
down, this was done by the researcher or the student answered
them orally and the answers were audio-recorded. Lastly, the
drawings were used as an entry to a semi-structured interview.
Each student was asked to describe what he or she had drawn.
This procedure gave each student the opportunity to frame their
own experiences, and interpret their drawing. This last part
lasted about 15 minutes in total.
The drawings were analyzed after all the data had been
collected. The analysis of the drawings was understood as
interpreting the meanings that the students had given to the
situations and objects they had presented (Blumer, 1969). As
suggested by Patton (2002), multiple stages of the analysis using
an analytic approach were performed. In the first step, the first
author of the paper and another expert in geometry focused on
developing an inventory to determine the fundamental ideas of
geometry in the students’ drawings. This process contained the
following steps: (a) transcribing audio data, (b) analysis of
drawings with respect to Wittmann’s (1999) model of
fundamental ideas of geometry, (c) confirmation of the
interpretation and coding of other conceptions included in the
students’ oral or written data, and interviews, and (d) developing
subcategories for each fundamental idea by clustering similar
concepts. The first researcher transcribed the audio data. We
both analyzed the drawings separately using Wittmann’s (1999)
model (see Table 1). Wittmann’s (1999) model provided
descriptions of each fundamental idea as well as different
aspects pertaining to each fundamental idea. Moreover, it
offered specific examples that are typical for geometry lessons.
This allowed us to assign a particular fundamental idea to items
that were present in the students’ data. However, taken the
generality of the model—as reported by Glasnović Gracin and
Kuzle (2018), we revised his framework by structuring and
expanding it with the goal of developing a multi-faceted
inventory. Concretely, each category as well as description of
18
each fundamental idea of geometry was reexamined, refined, or

expanded, if necessary, and subcategories of each fundamental
idea were developed, refined and/or defined on the basis of
students’ data taking into account different expression forms,
which allowed us to get a rich insight into images primary grade
students have of geometry.
Specifically, we first assigned one of Wittmann’s (1999)
categories to each item taking into account any form of
expression chosen by the child (i.e., drawing, written and/or oral
data, or interviews). If a descriptor was not given, the researchers
discussed the nature of the descriptor before assigning a
particular fundamental idea to the item. The interrater reliability
was high (97% agreement). Nevertheless, we discussed the
differences in coding taking into consideration both the students’
products as well as the mathematics curriculum
(Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft
Berlin, 2015). In that manner, the fundamental idea descriptors
were reexamined and refined. Adjustments were subsequently
made to our coding, after which the interrater reliability was
100%. Afterwards, the same researchers focused on separately
developing an inventory with subcategories for each
fundamental idea by going through all the drawings starting with
Grade 3 and ending with Grade 6. The inventories were
discussed (89% agreement) to obtain full agreement. Concretely,
the nature of each subcategory was discussed, which allowed to
refine each subcategory descriptor, and new subcategories were
developed on the basis of data to allow for a more fine-grained
analysis of the data. Consequently, this allowed developing a
very detailed and refined inventory to analyze students’
fundamental ideas. All procedures and decisions were recorded
in an audit trail, which also ensured trustworthiness and rigor
(Patton, 2002). This procedure was used to answer the first
research question.
To answer the second and third research questions, we used
the developed inventory and coded the drawings once again. We
assigned codes to each drawing separately using the inventory,
followed by a discussion of the results. For the within analysis,
each grade level was treated as a comprehensive case, whereas
cross-analysis was used to compare the particular cases against
19
each other. The interrater reliability was high (100% agreement).

Thus, analyst triangulation contributed to the verification and
validation of qualitative analysis (Creswell & Miller, 2000;
Patton, 2002). Afterwards the descriptive statistics were
calculated.
Figure 1 illustrates the coding. The drawing does not
represent a prototypical drawing, but rather has been selected on
the basis of data richness and versatility. In the description of the
drawings we used the coding presented in the Appendix. For
instance, F6 refers to the fundamental idea of geometric forms
in the environment. Here, each real-world object was coded as a
whole (F6). Given that three real-world objects (i.e., a snowman,
a house, and a tree), F6 was coded three times. Additionally, the
real-world objects are composed of 1- (F1b; e.g., curved and
straight-line segments) and 2-dimensional figures (F1c; e.g.,
circles, squares, rectangles, and triangles), which reflect the
fundamental idea of geometric forms and their construction (F1).
If the same geometric object (e.g., squares in Figure 1) was
drawn several times, it was coded once. Different 2-dimensional
figures were coded once for each object. The number in brackets
gives the absolute frequency of the category and the
subcategory.
Figure 1
Grade 3 Student’s Image of Geometry With Codes
The child drew three real-
world objects, namely a house,
a snowman, and a tree,
consisting of different
geometric forms.
Coding:
F1b: curved line segment;
straight line segment
F1c: circle; square; rectangle;
triangle
F6: snowman; house; tree
Summary of the coding:

F1(6): F1b(2), F1c(4)
F6(3)
20
Results
This section is divided into two parts. The first part focuses
on the development of the analytical tool that would provide
insight into students’ images of geometry from the perspective
of fundamental ideas of geometry. The second part focuses on
the evaluation of the distribution of fundamental ideas in the
learning groups by using drawings.
Fundamental Ideas of Geometry: An Analytical Tool
The inventory that emerged from the students’ drawings,

oral or written responses, and interviews is explained here (for
more details see Appendix). The first category is related to
Wittmann’s fundamental idea of geometric forms and their
construction (F1), which refers to both basic and composite
figures of different dimensions, their properties, and their
constructions. From the data nine subcategories emerged: 0-, 1-,
2-, 3-dimensional objects, geometric properties, drawing and
drawing/construction tools, non-geometrical tools for creating
geometrical objects, angles, and composite figures. All
subcategories except for non-geometrical tools for creating
geometrical objects and angles were listed in Wittmann’s
framework (1999).
When differing between 2- and 3-dimensional objects, other
data (i.e., students’ oral and written responses or data from the
interviews) was needed. As shown in Figure 2, the student
named each solid as well as surface shapes, whereas in Figure 3
depth of a rectangular prism was shown by using dashed lines.
With respect to Figure 2 the student wrote: “Living and funny
bodies are geometry for me. Spheres, cones, cubes, cylinders,
and surfaces are represented.” With respect to Figure 3 the
student said:
I drew a compass, a circle, a protractor, a ruler, a rectangular

prism, and a cube, because I think that these things belong
to a geometry lesson. When I think of geometry, I think of
exactly these things and that is why I drew them.
21
Figure 2
Grade 4 Student’s Drawing With 2- and 3-Dimensional Figures (3D
Solids: Sphere, Cone, Cube, Cylinder; 2D Shapes: Square, Rectangle,
Circle, Triangle)
Figure 3
Grade 6 Student’s Drawing With 2- and 3-Dimensional Figures and
Drawing Tools
22
With respect to properties of geometric figures, the students

either described the figure by writing down “A square has 4 right
angles,” or four right angles were illustrated in the drawing of a
square. When a student drew a geometric tool, it was important
that the function of the tool has been explicitly mentioned or
implicit from the data. With respect to the former, a student
wrote, “In geometry we use a ruler, compass or protractor to
draw figures,” or a student in the interview referred to a ruler as
a drawing tool as opposed to a measurement tool, whilst with
respect to the latter the tool was present in the figure with which
the forms were drawn, and no aspects related to measurement
were present (see Figure 3). Other than in Wittmann’s (1999)
framework, the students also used non-geometrical tools (e.g.,
wooden shapes or modelling clay) to create composite figures
by using different techniques (e.g., building or printing).
Additionally, the first category was expanded by the “Angles”
subcategory, as the students’ drawings, written data, or
interviews revealed a figurative angle aspect (e.g., angle as a turn
or angle as a wedge).
The second category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)
fundamental idea of operations with forms (F2), which refers to
different types of geometric mappings and manipulations with
forms, and the properties which are influenced by these. From
the data nine subcategories emerged as follows: translation,
rotation, dilation, point symmetry, line symmetry, congruence,
composing and decomposing, folding and unfolding, and
tessellation (see Figures 4 and 5). All subcategories were
consistent with Wittmann’s framework except for the last two
subcategories, namely folding and unfolding, and tessellation.
For instance, the student in Figure 5 said: “In geometry lessons
we played with different figures, which have different
symmetries. Here you can see a figure with rotational symmetry
[points at pink ‘windmill’], and two figures with line symmetry
[points at red circle and blue wind kite].” Even though the
students rarely illustrated properties of a particular
transformation, for the sake of completeness with respect to the
mathematics curriculum for primary grades (Senatsverwaltung
für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015) each
subcategory of the inventory was expanded with respect to this
23
aspect. The activities of folding and/or unfolding were most

often supported by additional data (e.g., “We folded a paper into
a Christmas star” as shown in Figure 4) or information (e.g.,
arrows).
Figure 4
Grade 5 Student’s Drawing Illustrating the Activity of Folding
(“Folding and Cutting-Out a Christmas Star”)
Figure 5
Grade 4 Student’s Drawing of a Figure With Rotational Symmetry
(“Drehung”) and of Two Figures With Line Symmetry
(“Spiegelung”)
24
The third category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)

fundamental idea of coordinates (F3), which was broadened to
reflect both curricular trends (e.g., Franke & Reinhold, 2016;
Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin,
2015; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006) as well as the students’
drawings and interviews. The subcategories that emerged were
as follows: coordinate system, positional relationships,
orientation and orientation tools, and spatial visualization,
relation, and orientation. In that manner, not only location but
also position (e.g., above or below) and positional relationship
of a geometric object or between geometric objects (e.g., a
square lies right from a circle, two lines are parallel to each other
as shown in Figure 6) in the plane or space was regarded, which
reflected more young students’ understanding of the
fundamental idea. In addition, the drawings and, especially,
interviews included activities that dealt with different aspects of
spatial manipulation, such as making a view plan or a building
plan of a geometrical composite figure or a cube building,
folding a net of a solid mentally. With respect to the latter, one
student wrote, “I have a lot of fun making nets of solids or
cutting them out and then folding them into solids. But I could
not draw that now,” which was often reported by the students
either in written or oral form. As such, we renamed the
fundamental into “coordinates, spatial relationships, and
reasoning” to allow for a broader understanding of the
fundamental idea than given by Wittmann who limited this
fundamental idea to describing location of geometric objects
using different type of coordinate systems.
The fourth category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)
fundamental idea of measurement (F4), which refers to
qualitative and quantitative properties used to describe
geometric forms as well as calculations of these using different
formulae. The subcategories that emerged were as follows:
length, perimeter, surface area, volume, angle measurement,
measuring tools, estimation, conversion of measuring units, and
scaling. Whereas the first five subcategories were also part of
Wittmann’s framework, the subcategory “measuring tools”
often emerged in the students’ data (i.e., drawings, oral or
written responses, or interviews). The last three subcategories,
25
namely estimation, conversion of measuring units, and scaling

were present in the data in a limited manner. Furthermore, these
aspects are an important part of the mathematics curriculum
Berlin, 2015), and were likewise revealed in a similar study
conducted by the authors. Hence, the inventory was expanded
with respect to these three subcategories. In Figures 4, 5, and 6
different subcategories can be seen, namely the activity of
measuring the length of line segments (“Miss!”, |𝐴𝐵 ̅̅̅̅| = 9 cm),
and formula for the area of a right-angled triangle, respectively.
Similar to our discussion earlier, when a child drew a geometric
tool, it was important that the function of the tool had been
explicitly mentioned by the student, either in their written
responses or in the interviews (e.g., “I measured the length of a
line segment with a ruler”) or implicit from the data (e.g., length
of a segment is measured which implies that a drawn tool is
understood as a measuring tool).
Figure 6
Grade 6 Student’s Drawing With a Parallel Projection of a Cube
26
Figure 7
Grade 3 Student’s Drawing of a Robot Head and a Six-Petal Rosette
Pattern
The fifth category is related to Wittmann’s fundamental idea

of patterns (F5), which was renamed into “geometric patterns”
since the data reflected patterns created by using simple
geometric forms. For instance, a Grade 3 student said when
asked to describe her drawing: “That in the middle is a pattern.
It is made of a square, a triangle, and a circle. And then I repeated
them creating a funny pattern.” Even though different patterns
were illustrated in the drawings, such as frieze pattern and six-
petal rosette pattern, patterns formed of geometric shapes (see
Figure 7), its small percentage did not allow creating different
subcategories.
The sixth category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)
fundamental idea of forms in the environment (F6), which refers
to the description of real-world objects, and operations on and
with them by using simple geometric forms. In order to
emphasize the core idea of this fundamental idea, we renamed it
into “geometric forms in the environment.” Figures 1 and 7
illustrate some of the motifs that could be seen in the students’
27
drawings. The student drawing Figure 7 said, “Here is a robot

head. It is made of different forms: circle for eyes and head,
rectangle for ears and mouth, triangle for his nose.” Despite
creative motifs in the students’ drawings (e.g., snowman, tree,
house, robot, disco ball, and tent), written responses, oral data,
or the interviews pertaining to this fundamental idea, the nature
of the fundamental idea did not allow creating different
subcategories. Often when students’ drawings included several
motifs, the students mentioned other ones in their written
responses or interviews.
Lastly, the seventh category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)
fundamental idea of geometrization (F7), which refers to
translation of geometric facts and problems into the language of
geometry, their handling with the help of geometric approaches,
followed by interpretation of the solution. The subcategories that
emerged were as follows: geometric facts, parallel projection,
and geometrical problems. In one case only, a geometric fact
was revealed during the interview, whereas in all other cases the
items were part of students’ drawings (i.e., in Figure 6). With
respect to the former, a Grade 6 student said when asked if there
is anything she did not draw but still want to say about geometry,
“Probably the best-known construction is the construction of the
Euler line. There the intersection points of the angle bisectors,
the medians, the altitudes, and the side bisectors are located on
a straight line.” For the sake of completeness with respect to the
mathematics curriculum for primary grades (Senatsverwaltung
für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015), the
inventory includes the subcategory “figurate numbers“
(Wittmann, 1999), but excludes graph theory (Wittmann, 1999)
as this is not part of the mathematics curriculum for primary
grades (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft
Berlin, 2015). In Figures 3 and 6 parallel projections of a cube
and a rectangular prism are drawn.
Fundamental Ideas of Geometry in Primary Education

Through Students’ Lenses: Similarities and Differences
Here, the focus was to evaluate the distribution of

fundamental ideas by using participant-produced drawings on
28
the basis of the developed inventory. As shown in Table 3, the

fundamental idea of geometric forms and their construction (F1)
was the most frequently coded fundamental idea of geometry
(76.6%). This was independent of the grade level, where all the
students’ drawings included at least one aspect regarding this
fundamental idea. The second most frequently coded
fundamental idea was geometric forms in the environment (F6)
with 8.7%. This was followed by the fundamental ideas of
measurement (F4), and coordinates, spatial relationships, and
reasoning (F3), with 4.8% and 4.2%, respectively. The
fundamental ideas of operations with forms (F2), geometric
patterns (F5), and geometrization (F7) were the three least coded
fundamental ideas with 3.2%, 1.3%, and 1.2%, respectively.
With respect to the fundamental idea of geometric forms and
their construction (F1), no increase is discernible (see Table 3),
even though one might expect a more comprehensive picture
from Grade 6 students than appeared in the data. According to
the mathematics curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,
Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015), Grade 6 students have
covered all of the subcategories listed in the inventory, and
should have reached the level of informal deduction (van Hiele,
1959/1984). This was, however, not reflected in the data, since
only Grade 4 and 5 students’ data exhibited all of the aspects
pertaining to F1 (see Table 4). Grade 6 students’ data, on the
other hand, revealed 7.3 codes on average pertaining to F1,
whereas Grade 3 students 4.4 codes, Grade 4 students 6.4 codes,
and Grade 5 students 5.8 codes on average. Thus, Grade 6
students’ data revealed a deeper and more thorough insight into
each subcategory’s aspect.
Nonetheless, there were some patterns in the students’
answers pertaining to different aspects of this fundamental idea.
In all grades, different plane surfaces (F1c) dominated in the data
with 36.5%, 38.7%, 42.5%, and 46.9% of codes pertaining to F1
in Grade 6, Grade 5, Grade 4, and Grade 3, respectively. F1c was
an aspect mentioned by most students: 97 students (85.1%) gave
answers pertaining to 2-dimensional figures (see Table 4). In
each grade more than 76% of students mentioned this aspect
independently, with a growing tendency from Grade 3 on. The
second most often depicted aspect was solids (F1d), ranging
29
30
Table 3
Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Students’ Fundamental Ideas of Geometry
Absolute and relative frequencies of fundamental ideas
Grade N F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 Total
3 25 111 6 9 2 2 11 0 141
(78.7%) (4.3%) (6.4%) (1.4%) (1.4%) (7.8%) (0%)
4 33 212 6 13 10 6 22 0 269
(78.8%) (2.2%) (4.8%) (3.7%) (2.3%) (8.2%) (0%)
5 28 163 9 5 8 3 31 1 220
(74.1%) (4.1%) (2.3%) (3.6%) (1.4%) (14.1%) (0.5%)
6 28 203 8 11 23 1 14 10 270
(75.2%) (3%) (4.1%) (8.5%) (0.4%) (5.2%) (3.7%)
Total 114 689 29 38 43 12 78 11 900
(76.6%) (3.2%) (4.2%) (4.8%) (1.3%) (8.7%) (1.2%)
Table 4
Subcategories of the Fundamental Idea “Geometric Forms and their Construction” Illustrated by the Most/Fewest Students
Fundamental idea “geometric forms and their construction”
Grade N F1a F1b F1c F1d F1e F1f F1g F1h F1i
3 25 1 3 19 12 0 6 3 0 4
(4%) (12%) (76%) (48%) (0%) (24%) (12%) (0%) (16%)
4 33 2 8 29 19 8 17 1 4 5
(6.1%) (24.2%) (87.9%) (57.6%) (24.2%) (51.5%) (3%) (12.1%) (15.2%)
5 28 2 6 24 18 6 14 4 4 4
(7.1%) (21.4%) (85.7%) (64.3%) (21.4%) (50%) (14.3%) (14.3%) (14.3%)
6 28 3 9 25 21 8 20 0 16 2
(10.7%) (32.1%) (89.3%) (75%) (28.6%) (71.4%) (0%) (57.1%) (7.1%)
Total 114 8 26 97 70 22 57 8 24 15
(7%) (22.8%) (85.1%) (61.4%) (19.3%) (50%) (7%) (21.1%) (13.2%)
31
from 21.2% (Grade 6) to 27% (Grade 3) of codes pertaining to

F1. In total, 70 students (61.4%) illustrated or mentioned this
aspect (see Table 4). As in the case of F1c, a growing tendency
with respect to F1d was observed, and F1d was illustrated the
most by Grade 6 students (75%; see Table 4). Various drawing
tools (F1f; e.g., drawing stencil, ruler, protractor, or compass)
were the third most frequently coded aspect of F1, ranging from
9% in Grade 3 to 16.6% of codes in Grade 5, and were illustrated
or mentioned by every second student (50% of drawings; see
Table 4). Likewise, a growing tendency from lower into higher
grades was observed, as the topic of 1-dimensional objects
becomes more important and diverse (Senatsverwaltung für
Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015).
The fourth most often illustrated aspect was 1-dimensional
objects (F1b), which was present in 22.8% of drawings (n = 26;
see Table 4). The students most often drew line segments, rays,
and lines. In few cases, curved and broken lines were illustrated
likewise. The data also reflected a growing tendency from lower
into higher grades. Starting with Grade 4, the angle concept
(F1h) was present in the drawings in a figurative manner. While
Grade 4 and 5 students most often drew a right angle, Grade 6
students mostly drew an arbitrary angle. Furthermore, a growing
tendency was observed from lower into higher grades, as the
topic of angles becomes more important and diverse
Berlin, 2015).
Most notably, the students differed with respect to the
properties of geometric forms (F1e). Though one may expect
that properties of geometric forms gain the importance as
primary grade students progress into higher grades, this was not
reflected in the data. Concretely, this aspect was seen in all
students’ drawings besides in Grade 3 drawings with 7.6%,
9.2%, and 5.9% of codes pertaining to F1 in Grade 4, Grade 5,
and Grade 6, respectively. From another perspective, almost
every fourth Grade 4 (24.2%), almost every fifth Grade 5
(21.4%), and almost every third Grade 6 (28.6%) student
illustrated or mentioned this aspect (see Table 4). Even though
Grade 6 students did not exhibit most of the codes pertaining to
32
F1e, it was exhibited by the most Grade 6 students compared to

other grade levels.
Subcategories F1i (composite figures), and F1a (0-
dimensional objects) and F1g (non-geometrical tool for creating
geometrical objects) were mentioned by the fewest students,
namely by 13.2% (n = 15) and 7% (n = 8) of students,
respectively (see Table 4), which are mostly dealt with in early
grades of primary education (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,
Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015).
Fundamental idea “operation with forms” (F2) does not
show an increase from Grades 3 to 6, as this fundamental idea
was most frequently coded in Grade 3 (4.3%) and least coded in
Grade 4 (2.2%; see Table 3). From another perspective, 24% of
Grade 3, 15.2% of Grade 4, 32.1% of Grade 5, and 28.6% of
Grade 6 students drew an aspect attributed to this fundamental
idea (see Table 5). Line symmetry (F2e), and folding and
unfolding (F2h) were two aspects mentioned by the most
students with 12.3% (n = 14) and 7.9% (n = 9) of drawings,
respectively (see Table 5). The former (F2e) was mainly present
in Grade 3 (20% of drawings), whereas the latter (F2h) in Grade
5 (17.9% of drawings). Furthermore, both aspects were
exhibited in the data regardless of the grade level. All other
transformations were not mentioned very often (once or twice),
or not at all. For instance, translation (F2a) and tessellation (F2i)
were only present in one Grade 4 and point symmetry (F2d) in
one Grade 6 students’ drawings each (see Table 5). Rotation
(F2b) was mentioned both in Grade 5 and Grade 6 by one student
each (see Table 5). No student drew an aspect pertaining to
dilation (F2c), congruence (F2f), and composition and
decomposition (F2g; see Table 5).
With respect to fundamental idea of coordinates, spatial
relationships, and reasoning (F3), a decrease from the lower
(6.4% in Grade 3) to the higher grades is observable (2.3% in
Grade 5), but increasing again in Grade 6 (4.1%; see Table 3).
Additionally, the drawings qualitatively differed. Lower grade
students used prepositions only (e.g., right, left, or below) to
describe the position of geometric forms (F3b), while upper
grade students used in addition a coordinate system (F3a) for it,
which is aligned with the mathematics curriculum
33
34
Table 5
Subcategories of the Fundamental Idea “Operations With Forms” Illustrated by the Most/Fewest Students
Fundamental idea “operations with forms”
3 25 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0
(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (20%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%)
4 33 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
(3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (6.1%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (3%)

5 28 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 5 0
(0%) (3.6%) (0%) (0%) (10.7%) (0%) (0%) (17.9%) (0%)
6 28 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 0
(0%) (3.6%) (0%) (3.6%) (14.3%) (0%) (0%) (7.1%) (0%)
Total 114 1 2 0 1 14 0 0 9 1
(0.9%) (1.8%) (0%) (0.9%) (12.3%) (0%) (0%) (7.9%) (0.9%)

Berlin, 2015). Furthermore, regardless of the grade level, using
prepositions to describe the position of geometric forms (F3b)
was the most often coded aspect pertaining to this fundamental
idea. Very few students mentioned an aspect pertaining to spatial
visualization, relation, and orientation (F3d), which was only
seen in Grade 4 students’ drawings. A tool for orientation (F3c;
i.e., compass rose) was drawn by one Grade 6 student.
With respect to fundamental idea of measurement (F4), the
students’ drawings show an increase of codes from the lower
grades (1.4%) to the higher grades (8.5%; see Table 3). All
aspects of this fundamental idea were exhibited (see Table 6). In
Grade 3, only length (F4a) and estimation (F4g) were addressed,
and each by one student only (4%; see Table 6). In Grade 4, in
addition to length (F4a), which was illustrated by four students
(12.1%), three other aspects appeared in the data, namely angle
measurement (F4e; 3%), measuring tools (F4f; 9.1%), and
scaling (F4i; 3; see Table 6). These were, however, illustrated by
a few students. Similarly, in Grade 5 in addition to length (F4a;
7.1% of drawings) and measuring tools (F4f; 3.6% of drawings),
perimeter (F4b) and surface area (F4c) were illustrated in 7.1%
and 10.7% of drawings, respectively (see Table 6). Lastly, Grade
6 students’ drawings depicted seven out of nine different
measurement aspects. Only estimation (F4g) and scaling (F4i)
were not present in the data. Here, measuring tools (F4f) were
illustrated by most students (25%; see Table 6). Additionally,
F4f was dominant in the students’ drawings with 30.4% of all
measurement codes. Whilst in earlier grades a protractor was
presented as a tool for measuring lengths, in Grade 6 the
protractor was assigned another role, namely as a tool to measure
angles. Furthermore, perimeter (F4b), and (surface) area (F4c)
were only present in Grade 5 and 6 students’ drawings, whereas
volume (F4d), and conversion of measuring units (F4h) in Grade
6 students’ drawings only. Thus, a more comprehensive picture
of this fundamental idea appeared in the data as students
progressed from lower to higher grades and different aspects win
on their relevance (see Table 6). Most notably was the length
aspect (F4a), which was seen in all drawings independent of the
grade level, and together with measuring tools (F4f) the most
35
36
Table 6
Subcategories of the Fundamental Idea “Measurement” Illustrated by the Most/Fewest Students
Fundamental idea “measurement”
3 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
(4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (0%)
4 33 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1
(12.1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (9.1%) (0%) (0%) (3%)

5 28 2 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0
(7.1%) (7.1%) (10.7%) (0%) (0%) (3.6%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
6 28 4 2 4 2 3 7 0 1 0
(14.3%) (7.1%) (14.3%) (7.1%) (10.7%) (25%) (0%) (3.6%) (0%)
Total 114 11 4 7 2 4 11 1 1 1
(9.7%) (3.5%) (6.1%) (1.8%) (3.5%) (9.7%) (0.9%) (0.9%) (0.9%)
dominant aspect of measurement idea (9.7% of all drawings).

Three measurement aspects, namely estimation (F4g),
conversion of measuring units (F4h), and scaling (F4i) were the
least coded aspect with 0.9% of all drawings (n = 1; see Table
6).
The fundamental idea of geometric patterns (F5) was the
second least coded fundamental idea with 1.3% of all codes (see
Table 3). Thus, very few students think of this fundamental idea
when thinking about geometry. Apart from Grade 4 and Grade
5, where four and three students’ drawings or written data,
respectively, revealed geometric patterns, only one student in
Grade 3 and Grade 6 depicted this aspect. In these instances,
different patterns were drawn, such as patterns using basic
geometric forms (Grades 3 and 4), frieze patterns (Grade 5), and
the six-petal rosette pattern (Grade 6).
As illustrated in Table 3, fundamental idea “geometric forms
in the environment” (F6) was the second most often coded
fundamental idea. Data revealed an increase from Grade 3 to
Grade 5 (from 7.8% to 14.1%), but a decrease in Grade 6 (5.2%).
Something pertaining to F6 was illustrated by almost every
fourth Grade 3 student (24% of drawings), almost every fifth
Grade 4 student (21.2% of drawings), almost every second
Grade 5 student (42.9% of drawings), and every fourth Grade 6
student (25% of drawings).
Geometrization (F7) refers to the most abstract fundamental
idea, which may explain the small number of codes (1.2%)
assigned to it as well as no codes in Grades 3 and 4 (see Table
3). Yet, an increase from the lower to the higher grades is
evident, reaching a maximum of 3.7% codes in Grade 6 (see
Table 3). Here, all subcategories were elicited apart from
figurate numbers (F7d). In Grade 5, one aspect pertaining to F7
was elicited, namely geometrical facts (F7a). Concretely, one
student illustrated the sum of the interior angles of a triangle.
Drawings and written data of six Grade 6 students (21.4%)
showed three different aspects: geometrical facts (F7a),
specifically sum of interior angles of a triangle, Euler’s line,
triangle congruence theorems; parallel projection of a cube and
a rectangular prism (F7b); and geometrical problems concerning
angle measurements (F7c).
37
Discussion and Conclusions
In the last section, the key aspects of geometry education

through the lens of fundamental ideas we proposed are
discussed. Lastly, the limitations of the study are considered, and
some possible future research directions are provided.
Educational Classroom Practices in Primary Grade

Geometry
In our study, we used participant-produced drawings as a

data source for researching primary grade students’ images of
geometry. We framed our study around fundamental ideas,
which have been advocated by many researchers as a means for
curriculum development (e.g., Mammana & Villani, 1998;
Rezat et al., 2014; Schweiger, 1992, 2000; Van de Walle &
Lovin, 2006; Wittmann, 1999). As it was not obvious whether
Wittmann’s framework worked for the approach of using
participant-produced drawings, in the first step we were
concerned with clarifying whether and how this framework can
be understood in this context. Since the framework turned out to
be suitable, it was used as a basis for developing a multi-faceted
inventory which both refined and expanded Wittmann’s (1999)
theoretical framework of fundamental ideas of geometry.
Concretely, on the basis of produced data, we developed
subcategories of each fundamental idea illustrating its different
aspects in order to get a more detailed and rich insight into
current educational practices in primary school geometry. Also,
we took different expression forms into consideration. The
developed inventory was then used for classifying the students’
images of geometry encoded in the participant-produced
drawings.
Independent of the grade level, the fundamental idea of
geometric forms and their construction (F1) dominated in
students’ drawings. This focus is not surprising as this
fundamental idea predominates throughout the mathematics
curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und
Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). Moreover, there was no noticeable
increase from Grade 3 to Grade 6. This is possibly due to the fact
38
that geometric forms are already covered before Grade 3.

Naturally, with each grade level, students learn new geometric
shapes and solids, and their properties; however, all Grade 3
students were able to make statements in this area. Though
properties of 2- and 3-dimensional objects are already covered
in the first two grades of primary education, the data of Grade 3
students did not reflect this (see Table 4). This may be due to the
limited linguistic abilities of young students. Nevertheless, it is
surprising that students mainly associated geometric forms with
plane surfaces and solids (see Table 4), even though 0- (F1a) and
1-dimensional objects (F1b) are covered in each grade in the
mathematics curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend
und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). The results showed that these
aspects increased from lower to higher grades. This might mean
that with time students associate geometry with 2- and 3-
dimensional forms, which may be due to the fact that (surface)
area and volume calculations are added to the measurement of
distances in the higher grades (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,
Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). Additionally, great
attention is given to 2- and 3-dimensional forms in the
und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015), and students develop different
ideas of these forms in every grade. Hence, the existing
mathematics curriculum may be crucial in developing learners’
understanding of geometry and the geometrical concepts.
Interestingly, students associated geometry more with
geometric forms in the environment (F6; 8.7% of codes), which
is addressed only once per grade level in the curriculum, than
with measurement (F4; 4.8% of codes; see Table 3), which
dominates throughout the curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für
Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015) as it is a
separate mathematics standard. An initial increase from Grade 3
to Grade 4 was expected as this content is explicitly dealt with
in Grades 1 to 4. In Grade 5, this content was still highly present,
even though this fundamental idea is no longer primarily part of
the curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und
Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). It may be that this content was
carried over from Grade 4 or was covered in Grade 5, and thus
still present. Similarly, in Grade 6 this content is no longer
39
primarily part of the curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,

Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015), which may explain its
low frequency (see Table 3). Rather, in Grade 6 the focus shifts
onto a more deductive approach to geometry. This may also
explain an increase in drawings addressing the fundamental idea
of geometrization (F7), especially with regard to geometrical
facts (F7a), parallel projection (F7b), and geometrical problems
(F7c). Considering that this fundamental idea is relatively well
represented in the curriculum in the upper grades
Berlin, 2015), only 3.6% of Grade 5 (n = 1) and 21.4% of Grade
6 students (n = 6) mentioned or illustrated this aspect. This may
be due to teachers who perceive geometry rather as
entertainment than important mathematical content (Backe-
Neuwald, 2000). In that manner, the development of deductive
and logical thinking plays a subsidiary role.
With respect to the fundamental idea of measurement (F4),
an increase from lower to higher grades was observable,
reaching its peak in Grade 6 (see Table 3). This may be due to
the fact that in the higher grades (surface) area (F4c), volume
calculations (F4d), and angle measurement (F4e) are added to
the measurement of lengths (F4a; Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,
Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). Even though Grade 6
students’ drawings depicted almost all geometry measures, on
average just one aspect was drawn per student. Only four
drawings depicted three or more different measures. Since this
fundamental idea illustrates the connection between geometry
and number and operations, it may be that not many students
perceived this fundamental idea as a part of geometry or were
not sure if that was the case. The fundamental idea of
coordinates, spatial relationships, and reasoning (F3) was not
frequently found in the students’ drawings, even though this
topic and its different aspects are well-covered in the
und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015), and are recognized as one of the
most important goals of school geometry (Franke & Reinhold,
2016; Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft
Berlin, 2015; Van de Walle & Lovin, 2006). Furthermore, it is
very surprising that this content was primarily addressed by
40
Grade 3 students at a basic level by using prepositions (F3b),

even though in Grades 5 and 6 the topic of coordinate systems
(F3a), and spatial visualization, relation, and orientation (F3d)
are intensively covered. However, there was no increase in
Grades 5 and 6. The low results with respect to the fundamental
idea of geometric patterns (F5) may suggest that this content is
either rarely discussed (Backe-Neuwald, 2000) or does not seem
to be directly linked to geometry lessons, but rather to algebra
lessons. As a consequence, the students might not have
established the connection between geometry and algebra,
which is the core idea of this fundamental idea.
Similar to the results of Glasnović Gracin and Kuzle (2018),
this study shows that primary grade students’ drawings revealed
a relatively narrow understanding of geometry with respect to
the diversity of fundamental ideas. Concretely, the majority of
the students drew aspects pertaining to either one (n = 37,
32.5%) or two fundamental ideas (n = 48, 42.1%). Only rarely
did students’ drawings present an image containing three or
more fundamental ideas of geometry (three ideas, n = 17; four,
n = 11; five, n = 1). Although all of the fundamental ideas were
depicted in the students’ drawings or mentioned in other data
sources, the fundamental ideas of geometric objects and their
construction (F1), and geometric forms in the environment (F6)
were most frequently exhibited. These, however, are just two of
the fundamental ideas, and solely focusing on them may result
in students developing a narrow understanding of geometry,
instead of facilitating the diversity and richness geometry has to
offer (Hansen, 1998). Also, placing little or no emphasis on
fundamental ideas (i.e., F4, F5, and F7) that connect geometry
to other content areas (i.e., measurement, algebra, number, and
operations) will resolve in developing a fragmented
understanding of geometry.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions
This study was an exploratory qualitative study using

purposive sampling. A sample of 114 cases was used, but the
results may be limited to the curriculum of two German federal
states (i.e., Berlin and Brandenburg), and for that reason may not
41
be widely generalized. These limitations suggest a possible next

step in research, namely to conduct a study with a larger data
sample in a wider variety of settings (e.g., federal states or
countries), so that a researcher could create a more thorough
description of the images students have of geometry. In addition,
drawings from entire classrooms across different grades and
schools may reveal a more complete picture of primary grade
students’ images of geometry. This would in addition allow for
comparisons between different grades and schools. Also, we
cannot assume that the drawings offered a complete picture of
the development of reasoning ability, so that in future studies
connection to van Hiele (1959/1984) levels could be explored.
Moreover, a longitudinal study would show whether students’
images of geometry change over time and how. Lastly, the study
design does not allow us to make direct inferences between
students’ images of geometry and their classroom practices. This
may be a path to explore in our future work by using other data
sources, such as observations of geometry lessons. This would
not only give researchers a better insight into current educational
practices in geometry, but would also provide practitioners a
window into their students’ thinking and learning (e.g., Anning,
1997; Pehkonen et al., 2016), providing teachers with ideas for
modifying their teaching practices with respect to the multi-
dimensionality of geometry. Future studies could also evaluate
the possibilities for classroom implementation of the inventory,
and the practicability of it as a classroom-tool for discussing
images of geometry.
Drawings and the processes by which they are made have
opened up a new way of gaining insight into students’ cognitive
processes pertaining to geometry. Nevertheless, there were some
drawbacks: some students had difficulties drawing, some did not
like to draw, some drew the objects which they found easy to
illustrate, and some aspects can be expressed by drawing in a
limited way. Concretely, students most often expanded on their
image of geometry pertaining to 3-dimensional figures (F1d),
geometric properties (F1e), and drawing/construction tools (F1f)
in the semi-structured interview, as they found those aspects
hard to draw. It is certainly plausible that the students have
knowledge of properties of geometric figures which was not
42
elicited in their drawings. Additionally, aspects pertaining to

operations with forms (F2), measurement (F4), and
geometrization (F7) also proved to be hard to draw. This may
also explain very few or no codes are pertaining to different
aspects of these fundamental ideas (e.g., F2c, F2f, F2g, F4a, F4b,
F4c, F4d, F4g, F7c, and F7d). Here again, additional data
sources (e.g., written questions and a semi-structured interview)
were necessary. Despite the inventory, the analysis of the
drawings has proven to be a challenging task. As Blumer (1969)
noted, the analysis of drawings is understood as interpreting the
meanings that the students had given to the situations and objects
they had presented. Thus, in order to avoid the coder’s own
interpretation, not only analyst triangulation is needed, but also
methodological triangulation such as participant-produced
drawings (Kearney & Hyle, 2004), allowing each student to
interpret his or her own drawing, which consequently allowed
an in-depth understanding of what the student had drawn.
By relating the study results to teaching practice, some
implications for geometry teaching can be drawn. In terms of
Brunner’s spiral curriculum, it seems to make sense to build the
children’s knowledge successively. It is important to pick up the
children from where they stand. The framework curriculum can
be an orientation for this (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend
und Wissenschaft Berlin, 2015). In addition, the school’s
internal curriculum may be used to help plan lessons.
Furthermore, it may be concluded that the fundamental ideas of
geometry that occurred less frequently have also played a
subordinate role in classroom instruction. Consequently, since
teachers are the most significant influencing factor in students’
learning of geometry, their attitude and willingness to teach
determine the development of students’ content-related and
process-related competencies. Further training courses could
remedy a lack of didactic knowledge and ensure professional
confidence in teaching.
Last but not least, we strongly believe that the new
framework of fundamental ideas of geometry presented in this
article, and the method, namely drawings, employed in this
research, will provide a basis not only for further study of
students’ images of geometry, but also impact educational
43
classroom practices in school geometry. With the help of the

inventory, both researchers and practitioners have the possibility
of identifying practices in geometry as seen through their
students’ lenses. Thus, the inventory may be used as a classroom
tool for discussing students’ learning in the context of geometry
lessons. In that manner, the tool could make students’ images of
geometry more visible, allowing students as well as teachers to
gain insight into geometry thinking in the classroom. If children
are allowed to draw, it makes sense to talk to them afterwards
(e.g., narrative interviews [Krüger, 2006]) to get an insight into
their thinking. On the other hand, it may provide teachers a
window into their teaching to see through their students’ eyes.
Especially the fundamental ideas or the subcategories of these
that were not often illustrated by the students, but are part of the
mathematics curriculum and were taught by the teacher, may
provide the teachers with paramount feedback (e.g., paying more
attention to the idea in question, revising the content) and allow
the teacher to reflect on his teaching practices (e.g., Why did not
the students perceive the idea in question as important?). As
such, students’ drawings and their interpretations of drawings
are productive ways of promoting dialogue about learning
between young people and their teachers (Anning, 1997).
References
Ahtee, M., Pehkonen, E., Laine, A., Näveri, L., Hannula, M. S., & Tikkanen,
P. (2016). Developing a method to determine teachers’ and pupils’
activities during a mathematics lesson. Teaching Mathematics and
Computer Science, 14(1), 25–43.
https://doi.org/10.5485/tmcs.2016.0414
Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 219–239.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008824921210
Anning, A., & Ring, K. (2004). Making sense of children’s drawings. Open
University Press.
Backe-Neuwald, D. (2000). Bedeutsame Geometrie in der Grundschule: Aus
Sicht der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, des Faches, des Bildungsauftrages
und des Kindes [Significant geometry in primary school: From the
viewpoint of the teachers, the subject, the educational mission, and the
child] [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Paderborn].
44
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.

Prentice-Hall.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative
inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical
challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
15(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701321477
Eysenck, M. W. (2012). Fundamentals of cognition (2nd ed.). Psychology
Press.
Franke, M., & Reinhold, S. (2016). Didaktik der Geometrie in der
Grundschule [Didactics of geometry in primary school] (3rd ed.).
Springer Spektrum.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Springer
Netherlands.
Glasnović Gracin, D., & Kuzle, A. (2018). Drawings as external
representations of children’s fundamental ideas and the emotional
atmosphere in geometry lessons. Center for Educational Policy Studies
Journal, 8(2), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.299
Golomb, C. (1994). Drawing as representation: The child’s acquisition of a
meaningful graphic language. Visual Arts Research, 20(2), 14–28.
Hannula, M. S. (2007). Finnish research on affect in mathematics: Blended
theories, mixed methods and some findings. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 39(3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0022-7
Hansen, V. L. (1998). Changes and trends in geometry curricula. In C.
Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry
for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 235–261). Springer
Netherlands.
Jones, K. (2000). Critical issues in the design of the school geometry
curriculum. In B. Barton (Ed.), Readings in mathematics education (pp.
75–90). University of Auckland.
Kearney, K. S., & Hyle, A. E. (2004). Drawing out emotions: The use of
participant-produced drawings in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative
Research, 4(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104047234
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Harvard University Press.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1988). Aspects of a cognitive neuroscience of mental
imagery. Science, 240(4859), 1621–1626.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3289115
Krüger, H.-H. (2006). Forschungsmethoden in der Kindheitsforschung
[Research methods in childhood research]. Diskurs Kindheits- und
45
Jugendforschung, 1, 91–115. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-

opus-9874
Kuzle, A., Glasnović Gracin, D., & Klunter, M. (2018). Primary grade
students’ fundamental ideas of geometry revealed via drawings. In E.
Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 42nd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 283–290). PME.
Laine, A., Näveri, L., Ahtee, M., Hannula, M. S., & Pehkonen, E. (2013).
Emotional atmosphere in third-graders’ mathematics classroom – an
analysis of pupils’ drawings. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education,
17(3-4), 101–116.
Luquet, G.-H. (2001). Children’s drawings (‘Le dessin enfantin’) (A. Costall,
Trans.). Free Association Books. (Original work published 1927)
Mammana, C., & Villani, V. (Eds.). (1998). Perspectives on the teaching of
geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study. Springer Netherlands.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Pearson, J., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). The heterogeneity of mental
representation: Ending the imagery debate. PNAS, 112(33), 10089–
10092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504933112
Pehkonen, E., Ahtee, M., & Laine, A. (2016). Pupils’ drawings as a research
tool in mathematical problem-solving lessons. In P. Felmer, E.
Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical
problems: Advances and new perspectives (pp. 167–188). Springer.
Picker, S. H., & Berry, J. S. (2000). Investigating pupils’ images of
mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 65–94.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017523230758
Rezat, S., Hattermann, M., & Peter-Koop, A. (Eds.). (2014). Transformation
– A fundamental idea of mathematics education. Springer.
Rolka, K., & Halverscheid, S. (2006). Pictures as a means for investigating
mathematical beliefs. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A.
Méndez (Eds), Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth Annual Meeting of the
North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology
of Mathematics Education (pp. 533–539). Universidad Pedagógica
Nacional.
Rolka, K., & Halverscheid, S. (2011). Researching young students’
mathematical world views. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(4), 521–
533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0330-9
46
Schweiger, F. (1992). Fundamentale Ideen: Eine geisteswissenschaftliche

Studie zur Mathematikdidaktik [Fundamental ideas: A humanities study
on mathematics didactics]. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 13(2/3),
199–214.
Schweiger, F. (2010). Fundamentale Ideen [Fundamental ideas]. Shaker.
Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft Berlin. (2015).
Rahmenlehrplan Jahrgangsstufen 1–10: Teil C, Mathematik
[Framework curriculum Grades 1-10: Part C, Mathematics].
Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport des Landes Brandenburg.
Thomson, P. (2008). Doing visual research with children and young people.
Routledge.
Tuohilampi, L., Laine, A., Hannula, M. S., & Varas, L. (2016). A
comparative study of Finland and Chile: The culture-dependent
significance of the individual and interindividual levels of the
mathematics-related affect. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 14, 1093–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
015-9639-0
Van de Walle, J. A., & Lovin, L. H. (2006). The Van de Walle professional
mathematics series: Vol 3. Teaching student-centered mathematics:
Grades 5–8. Pearson.
van Hiele, P. M. (1984). The child’s thought and geometry. In D. Fuys, D.
Geddes, & R. W. Tischler (Eds.), English translation of selected
writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele. Brooklyn
College. (Original work published 1959)
Vollrath, H. J. (1978). Rettet die Ideen! [Save the ideas!]. Der Mathematisch-
Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 31, 449–455.
Willson, W. W. (1977). The mathematics curriculum: Geometry. Blackie.
Winter, H. (1976). Was soll Geometrie in der Grundschule? [What should
geometry be like in elementary school?]. Zentralblatt Didaktik der
Mathematik, 8, 14–18.
Wittmann, E. C. (1999). Konstruktion eines Geometriecurriculums
ausgehend von Grundideen der Elementargeometrie [The construction
of a geometry curriculum based on the fundamental ideas of elementary
geometry]. In H. Henning (Ed.), Mathematik lernen durch Handeln und
Erfahrung: Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Heinrich Besuden (pp.
205–223). Bültmann und Gerriets.
47
Appendix
Analytical Tool for Analyzing the Fundamental Ideas of

Geometry
Code Title Comments and/or examples

F1 Geometric Basic and composite geometric forms of
forms and their different dimensions, their properties and
construction construction/creation fall into this
category.
F1a 0-dimensional A point as a separate object has been drawn.
objects It can be, but it does not need to be, labeled.
F1b 1-dimensional A segment, a ray and/or a line have been
objects drawn as a separate object or written down.
The object can be, but it does not need to be,
labeled.
F1c 2-dimensional A geometrical shape (e.g., square, circle,
objects rectangle, triangle) has been drawn as a
separate object or written down. The object
can be, but it does not need to be, labeled.
Other data (e.g., written, oral) is needed to
confirm that the child did not draw a 3-
dimensional object in 2-D.
F1d 3-dimensional A geometrical solid (e.g., cube, pyramid) has
objects been drawn as a separate object or written
down. The object can be, but it does not need
to be labeled. The object can also be drawn
as a 2-dimensional object. Here, either
shading or written/oral data confirms
classification.
F1e geometric A property of a geometrical object is
properties described or illustrated in the drawing. For
instance, a child wrote “A square has 4 right
angles” or four right angles are illustrated in
the drawing of a square.
F1f drawing and Drawing/constructing as an activity was
drawing/ mentioned. A drawing/construction tool (e.g.,
construction ruler, protractor, compass) has been drawn.
tools The function of the tool has to be explicitly
mentioned. E.g., a ruler is explained as a
drawing tool rather than as a measuring tool.
48
F1g non-geometrical Material, such as inchworms, wooden 3-

tools for dimensional shapes, modeling clay, is
creating illustrated or mentioned as a way of creating
geometrical geometric objects.
objects
F1h angles Angle stands for planar objects that can be
created by means of concrete representations.
The figurative angle aspect is emphasized
here. For example, angle as a wedge, angle as
a turn.
F1i composite A composite figure without any reference to
figures real word object(s) (e.g., cube building, net
of a cube) made out geometry manipulatives
(e.g., wooden cubes, polydron material) or
material (e.g., modeling clay) is illustrated or
mentioned. Here different techniques are
possible (e.g., building, kneading, covering,
printing).
F2 Operations Geometric mappings and other
with forms manipulations with forms, and the
properties influenced or changed by these,
fall into this category.
F2a translation A figure with translational symmetry or a
translation of an object with a translational
vector is drawn. Properties of translation are
documented.
F2b rotation A figure with rotational symmetry or a
rotation of an object with an angle and a
point of rotation is drawn. Properties of
rotation are documented.
F2c dilation A given geometrical object is either enlarged
or compressed. Properties of dilation are
documented.
F2d point symmetry A figure with point symmetry or a point
symmetry of an object is drawn. Properties of
point symmetry are documented.
F2e line symmetry A figure with line symmetry or a reflected
figure of an object with a given line of
symmetry is drawn. Properties of line
symmetry are documented.
F2f congruence Two figures overlap. Properties of
congruence are documented.
F2g composing & A figure is decomposed into simpler forms or
decomposing composed into a larger simpler form.
49
F2h folding & The activity of folding or unfolding is

unfolding illustrated. For instance, the activity of
folding and/or unfolding a paper is illustrated
(e.g., origami). A net of a shape is drawn
with an explanation that by folding it one
gets a cube or arrows illustrating folding are
drawn.
F2i tessellation A tessellation of a plane is drawn (e.g., fish
tessellation). Properties of tessellation are
documented.
F3 Coordinates, Position and location of geometric forms
spatial in the plane or space as well as spatial
relationships, reasoning about them fall into this
and reasoning category.
F3a coordinate A coordinate system with x- and y axis or a
system map grid is drawn. An object is placed in a
coordinate system or in a map grid with
coordinates given to its constituent parts.
F3b positional The subcategory refers to specifying
relationships positions and describing relations to other
objects. A positional adverb (e.g., above,
below, left from) or positional relationship of
an object or between object is described (e.g.,
a square lies right from a circle, two lines are
parallel to each other).
F3c orientation and Mathematical conventions (e.g., labelling
orientation tools vertices in a polygon, labelling an angle)
with respect to orientation are illustrated in a
drawing (e.g., arrow showing a
(counter)clockwise labelling of vertices in a
square). A tool for orientation (e.g., a
compass rose) is drawn.
F3d spatial The subcategory refers to tasks dealing with
visualization, different aspects of mental manipulation
relation and (e.g., folding a net of a solid mentally,
orientation making a view plan of a geometrical
composite figure or of a cube building).
F4 Measurement Qualitative and quantitative properties
used to describe geometric forms as well
as calculation of these using formulae fall
into this category.
F4a length A geometrical object is drawn and the length
of at least one constituent part is illustrated.
For example, the length of the sides of a
parallelogram or the radius of a circle are
measured. Units of length are illustrated.
50
F4b perimeter A geometrical object is drawn and its

perimeter is illustrated. A formula for a
perimeter of an arbitrary figure is written.
Perimeter of a figure is calculated.
F4c surface area A geometrical object is drawn and its surface
area is illustrated. A formula for a surface
area of an arbitrary figure is written. Area of
a figure is calculated. Units of surface area
are illustrated.
F4d volume A geometrical object is drawn and its volume
is illustrated. A formula for a volume of an
arbitrary figure is written. Volume of a solid
is calculated. Units of volume are illustrated.
F4e angle measure The size of the drawn angle is illustrated
(e.g., quarter of a circle with a dot in the
middle for a right angle). Size of an angle is
measured.
F4f measuring tools A measuring tool (e.g., ruler, set square) has
been drawn. The function of the tool has to
be explicitly mentioned. For example,, a ruler
is explained as a measuring tool rather than
as a drawing tool.
F4g estimation Estimation as an activity is illustrated. For
example, a child draws a benchmark for a
particular geometrical measure (e.g., 1 cm =
1 small finger width,
10 cm = a hand’s width with thumb).
F4h conversion of Conversion of 1-, 2-, or 3-dimensional units
measuring units is illustrated.
F4i scaling A scale drawing of a geometrical object (e.g.,
a house) has been illustrated with a given
scale.
F5 Geometric Geometric patterns created by using
patterns simple geometric forms fall into this
category. For example, a frieze pattern,
six-petal rosette is drawn.
F6 Geometric Description of real-world objects, and
forms in the operations on and with them by using
environment geometric forms fall into this category.
F7 Geometrization Plane and spatial geometric theorems and
problems, relationships between numbers
(e.g., triangular numbers), and abstract
relationships, which can be translated into
the language of geometry and then
translated again into practical solutions,
fall into this category.
51
F7a geometrical A particular geometrical fact (e.g., the sum of

facts interior angles in a triangle, S-S-S theorem)
is documented.
F7b parallel A parallel projection of a particular solid is
projection drawn.
F7c geometrical A geometrical problem is illustrated (e.g.,
problems computing a missing angle measurement in a
complex task, computing volume of a
composite solid).
F7d figurate An example of a figurate number (e.g.,
numbers triangular, numbers, cubic numbers) is
illustrated.
52

Geometry

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationThis is a paper on math

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geometry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geometry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mathematics Educator

2020 Vol. 29, No. 1, 7–52

Making Sense of Geometry Education

Geometry is one of the earliest established branches of

Ana Kuzle is Associate Professor of mathematics education in the Department of

the geometry they should learn might look as a “kind of

• What geometrical concepts are being taught in geometry

The main goal of the inquiry presented in this paper was to

In this section, we first present the construct of fundamental

1 Here, we do not refer to an ordinary informal meaning of the word “image.”

As early as the late 1970s, researchers (e.g., Schweiger,

other hand, provided a content framework for geometry

F5: Patterns In geometry, there are many possibilities to relate

Wittmann’s (1999) fundamental ideas of geometry are

Drawings, Mental Images, and Image-Based Research

In image-based research, visual methods, such as drawings

representation of what they see before them; rather, students use

which can be stored in both depictive and propositional format,

analytical tool. Furthermore, the framework showed weaknesses

In order to gain insight into young students’ understanding

1. How can an analytical tool be developed that would

Research Design and Subjects

For this study, an explorative qualitative research design

Data Collection Instruments

The research data consisted of (a) audio data, (b) document

• In what way is geometry present in your drawing?

Depending on the age of the student, these questions were

Procedure and Data Analysis

The research data were collected in a one-to-one setting

to him or her what geometry is for you. Be creative in your

each fundamental idea of geometry was reexamined, refined, or

each other. The interrater reliability was high (100% agreement).

Summary of the coding:

Fundamental Ideas of Geometry: An Analytical Tool

The inventory that emerged from the students’ drawings,

I drew a compass, a circle, a protractor, a ruler, a rectangular

With respect to properties of geometric figures, the students

aspect. The activities of folding and/or unfolding were most

The third category is related to Wittmann’s (1999)

namely estimation, conversion of measuring units, and scaling

The fifth category is related to Wittmann’s fundamental idea

drawings. The student drawing Figure 7 said, “Here is a robot

Fundamental Ideas of Geometry in Primary Education

Here, the focus was to evaluate the distribution of

the basis of the developed inventory. As shown in Table 3, the

from 21.2% (Grade 6) to 27% (Grade 3) of codes pertaining to

F1e, it was exhibited by the most Grade 6 students compared to

(3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (6.1%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (3%)

(Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft

(12.1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (9.1%) (0%) (0%) (3%)

dominant aspect of measurement idea (9.7% of all drawings).

Discussion and Conclusions

In the last section, the key aspects of geometry education

Educational Classroom Practices in Primary Grade

In our study, we used participant-produced drawings as a

that geometric forms are already covered before Grade 3.

primarily part of the curriculum (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung,

Grade 3 students at a basic level by using prepositions (F3b),