SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Issue: 4

Concrete Materials in the Teaching of Geometric Solids: Availability and Usage in Middle Schools

Geometrik Cisimlerin Öğretiminde Somut Materyaller: Ortaokullarda Bulunma ve Kullanılma Durumları

Ali İhsan Mut(Dicle Üniversitesi)0000-0001-5535-9174
Himmet Korkmaz(ORDU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7495-8452
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-07
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings: The findings revealed that most concrete materials suitable for teaching geometric solids were not available in schools.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aimed to examine middle school mathematics teachers’ use of concrete materials in the teaching of geometric solids and to determine the availability of such materials in schools.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants were 25 mathematics teachers working in middle schools in a city in Türkiye’s Southeastern Anatolia Region, selected through a combination of stratified purposeful sampling and criterion sampling.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings: The findings revealed that most concrete materials suitable for teaching geometric solids were not available in schools.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Concrete materials · geometric solids · teaching middle school mathematics

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine middle school mathematics teachers’ use of concrete materials in the teaching of geometric solids and to determine the availability of such materials in schools. Method: A descriptive research design was employed. The participants were 25 mathematics teachers working in middle schools in a city in Türkiye’s Southeastern Anatolia Region, selected through a combination of stratified purposeful sampling and criterion sampling. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and qualitative content analysis. Findings: The findings revealed that most concrete materials suitable for teaching geometric solids were not available in schools. Teachers predominantly used available materials, while alternative strategies, such as using handmade or student-made models, providing real-life examples, and employing interactive whiteboards, were adopted when concrete materials were unavailable. Most teachers did not express views regarding the reasons for material shortages. Although teachers reported informing school administrators verbally or in writing about missing materials, no improvements in material provision were observed, despite administrators’ awareness of these deficiencies. Conclusion: Overall, the results indicate that the use of concrete materials is strongly constrained by material availability and systemic or administrative barriers. The study concludes with implications and recommendations for educational policy, school administration, teacher education, and future research.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin katı cisimlerin öğretiminde somut materyalleri kullanma durumlarını incelemek ve bu materyallerin okullarda bulunabilirliğini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Katılımcılar, Türkiye’nin Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’ndeki bir şehirde ortaokullarda çalışan, tabakalı amaçlı örnekleme ve ölçüt örneklemenin birlikte kullanıldığı yöntemle seçilen 25 matematik öğretmenidir. Veriler, betimsel istatistiksel yöntemler ve içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Bulgular, geometrik cisimlerin öğretilmesinde uygun somut materyallerin çoğunun okullarda bulunmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Öğretmenler ağırlıklı olarak mevcut materyalleri kullanırken, somut materyallerin bulunmadığı durumlarda el yapımı veya öğrenciler tarafından yapılan modellerin kullanılması, gerçek hayattan örneklerin verilmesi ve akıllı tahtaların kullanılması gibi alternatif stratejiler benimsenmiştir. Çoğu öğretmen, materyal eksikliğinin nedenleri hakkında görüş belirtmemiştir. Öğretmenler, eksik materyalleri okul idaresine sözlü veya yazılı olarak bildirdiklerini belirtmiş olsalar da idarecilerin bu eksikliklerin farkında olmalarına rağmen materyal temininde herhangi bir iyileşme gözlemlenmemiştir. Sonuç: Genel olarak, sonuçlar somut materyallerin kullanımının okullarda somut materyallerin hazır olarak bulunma durumları ve sistemsel veya idari engeller tarafından büyük ölçüde kısıtlandığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, eğitim politikası, okul idaresi, öğretmen eğitimi ve gelecekteki araştırmalar için çıkarımlar ve önerilerle son bulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mut, A. İ., Korkmaz, H. (2026). Concrete Materials in the Teaching of Geometric Solids: Availability and Usage in Middle Schools. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1870579

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Ameen, K. S., Abdullahi, K., & Gbadamosi, K. H. (2024). Availability and utilization of instructional materials for teaching mathematics in senior secondary schools in Nigeria. Journal of Educational Studies in Science and Mathematics, 3(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.29329/jessm.2024.1051.2
  2. Atit, K., Power, J. R., Veurink, N., Uttal, D. H., Sorby, S., Panther, G., Msall, C., Fiorella, L., & Carr, M. (2020a). Examining the role of spatial skills and mathematics motivation on middle school mathematical achievement. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00234-3
  3. Baki, A. (2000). Bilgisayar donanımlı ortamda matematik öğrenme. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 19(19), 186–193. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/88050
  4. Bakó, M. (2003, February). Different projecting methods in teaching spatial geometry. In Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1–9).
  5. Baran, Ş., & Doğan, S. (2004). Erzurum il merkezindeki liselerin biyoloji laboratuvarlarının araç ve gereçleri bakımından durumu. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 23–33. https://izlik.org/JA75TW63LE
  6. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Information Age Publishing.
  7. Bozkurt, A., & Akalın, S. (2010). Matematik öğretiminde materyal geliştirmenin ve kullanımının yeri, önemi ve bu konuda öğretmenin rolü. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler, 27, 47–56. https://izlik.org/JA44XA37SN
  8. Buzza, J. M. (2011). Effects of lack of mathematics teaching and learning materials on learners' achievement in ordinary level secondary schools in Tanzania: The case of Bagamoyo District (Master's dissertation). University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
  9. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
  10. Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice,18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00067
  11. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). Macmillan.
  12. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968–970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204537
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  14. Çalışkan, E., Gökçe, S., & Önal, N. (2019). Uzamsal becerilerin geliştirilmesi için üç boyut içerikli etkileşimli videoların kullanılabilirliğine yönelik bir inceleme. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.584671
  15. Çelik, L. (2007). Öğretim materyallerinin hazırlanması ve seçimi. In Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı. Pegem Yayıncılık.
  16. Çiftçi, Ş. K., Yıldız, P., & Bozkurt, E. (2015). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin materyal kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri. Eğitimde Politika Analizi Dergisi [Journal of Educational Policy Analysis], 4(1), 79–89. https://izlik.org/JA85PC27PP
  17. Demir, Ö., & Gün, Ö. (2023). Geometrik cisimlerin öğretiminde somut materyal kullanımının öğrencilerin başarısına, tutumuna ve öz-yeterliğine etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 57, 1735-1762. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1283743
  18. de Oliveira, G. C., Luz, F. P., da Silva Junior, S. M., Melo, A. L. F. de C., Carneiro, M. T., Rocha, D. C. da C., de Oliveira Neto, G. L., & Gois, F. B. de M. (2025). Use of concrete materials in teaching calculation of areas and volumes of prism and cylinder. ARACÊ, 7(3), 10658–10677. https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n3-036
  19. Duatepe-Paksu, A. (2016). van Hiele geometrik düşünme düzeyleri. In E. Bingölbali, S. Arslan, & İ. Ö. Zembat (Eds.), Matematik eğitiminde teoriler (s. 265-275). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  20. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 37–52). Springer.
  21. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic Issues for Learning in Mathematics, 1(1), 27–35.
  22. Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
  23. Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273689
  24. Gökmen, A., Budak, A. & Ertekin, E. (2016). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin matematik öğretiminde somut materyal kullanmaya yönelik inançları ve sonuç beklentileri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(3), 1213–1228. https://izlik.org/JA55DG62RZ
  25. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Apaydın, S. (2009). Tangram etkinliği ile çevre ve alan hesabı [Perimeter and area calculation with tangram activity]. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 1–6. https://izlik.org/JA46KD38LW
  26. Herbst, P., Fujita, T., Halverscheid, S., & Weiss, M. (2017). The learning and teaching of geometry in secondary schools: A modeling perspective. Springer.
  27. İlhan, M., & Gezer, M. (2021). Araştırmaların sınıflandırılması. In B. B. Çetin, M. İlhan, & M. G. Şahin (Eds.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (pp. 101–132). Pegem.
  28. Jones, K. (2002). Issues in the teaching and learning of geometry. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics: Perspectives on practice (pp. 121–139). Routledge Falmer.
  29. Kelly, A. (2006). Composite materials after seventy years. Journal of Materials Science, 41, 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-6569-9
  30. Küçükgençay, N., Peker, B., & Acar, S. (2020). Teachers’ access statuses to manipulatives in mathematics lessons and the factors limiting their access: A qualitative study. Turkish Studies - Education, 15(5), 3513–3534. https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.43727
  31. Levy, M. (2004). [Review of Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally, by J. A. Van de Walle]. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(5), 286–287. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41198259
  32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newberry Park.
  33. Mason, M. (2009). The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. In L. McDougal (Ed.), The professional handbook for teachers: Geometry (pp. 4–8). McDougal Littell / Houghton-Mifflin.
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  35. Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2018). Mathematics course teaching curriculum (Elementary and middle schools 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, grades). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Last access date: 14.12.2024
  36. Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2021). Mathematics course teaching curriculum (Secondary schools 9, 10, 11, and 12, grades). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Last access date: 14.12.2024
  37. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Last access date: 26.05.2026
  38. Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). The relation between space and math: Developmental and educational implications. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 42, 197–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394388-0.00006-X
  39. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596316942
  40. Mutodi, P., & Ngirande, H. (2014). Perception of secondary school teachers towards the use of concrete materials in constructing mathematical meaning, International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3), 449–461, https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890206
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  42. Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29–35. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Newcombe_1.pdf
  43. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
  44. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75, 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9251-8
  45. Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Guitierrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 205-235). Sense Publishers.
  46. Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: Knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(4), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9077-9
  47. Stylianou, D. A., Blanton, M. L., & Knuth, E. J. (2009). Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective. Routledge.
  48. Uğur, B., Urhan, S., & Arkün Kocadere, S. (2016). Geometrik cisimler konusunun dinamik geometri yazılımı ile öğretimi. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.278069
  49. Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2
  50. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7
  51. van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Press.
  52. Yaman, S., & Öner, F. (2003). Lise fizik laboratuvarlarında kullanılan araç-gereçlerin yeterlilik düzeyleri ve laboratuvardaki çalışmaların değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 379–386.
  53. Yazlık, D. Ö. (2022). Use of concrete teaching materials in teaching mathematics: Textbook analysis. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 7(18), 1984-2027. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoecc.571
  54. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  55. Yıldız, B., & Tüzün, H. (2011). Üç boyutlu sanal ortam ve somut materyal kullanımının uzamsal yeteneğe etkileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 498–508. https://izlik.org/JA73PR33HB
  56. de Oliveira, G. C., Luz, F. P., da Silva Junior, S. M., Melo, A. L. F. de C., Carneiro, M. T., Rocha, D. C. da C., de Oliveira Neto, G. L., & Gois, F. B. de M. (2025). Use of concrete materials in teaching calculation of areas and volumes of prism and cylinder. ARACÊ, 7(3), 10658–10677. https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n3-036
  57. Duatepe-Paksu, A. (2016). van Hiele geometrik düşünme düzeyleri. In E. Bingölbali, S. Arslan, & İ. Ö. Zembat (Eds.), Matematik eğitiminde teoriler (s. 265-275). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.