SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 75

5E and CRA integration: Effects on geometric concept images and connection skills

5E ve CRA entegrasyonu: Geometrik kavram imajları ve ilişkilendirme becerileri üzerindeki etkisi

Funda Uysal(Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9929-9812
Pages
388–409
Publication Date
2025-07-31
🏛️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)

The research findings provide guidance for mathematics teachers in using manipulatives and progressive instructional strategies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined the effects of integrating the 5E Instructional Model with the Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA) approach on 10th-grade students’ concept images of parallelograms and rhombuses and their mathematical connection skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study employed a quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control groups, involving 61 students (experimental group n=31, control group n=30).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The research findings provide guidance for mathematics teachers in using manipulatives and progressive instructional strategies.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:5E öğretim modeli · somut-yarı somut-soyut yaklaşımı · kavram imajı

Abstract

This study examined the effects of integrating the 5E Instructional Model with the Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA) approach on 10th-grade students’ concept images of parallelograms and rhombuses and their mathematical connection skills. The study employed a quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control groups, involving 61 students (experimental group n=31, control group n=30). The experimental group received instruction using the integrated 5E-CRA model, while the control group received traditional instruction. Data were collected using the “Parallelogram and Rhombus Concept Assessment Tool” developed by the researcher. Results revealed that the integrated approach had very large positive effects on parallelogram concept image (d=2.78), rhombus concept image (d=2.42), and mathematical connection skills (d=2.36). The findings demonstrate that 5E-CRA integration offers an effective alternative to traditional methods in geometric concept instruction, highlighting the critical role of systematic progression from concrete to abstract in developing conceptual understanding and connection skills. The research findings provide guidance for mathematics teachers in using manipulatives and progressive instructional strategies.

Özet

Bu araştırma, 5E Öğretim Modeli ile Somut-Yarı Somut-Soyut (CRA) yaklaşımının entegrasyonunun 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin paralelkenar ve eşkenar dörtgen kavram imajları ile matematiksel ilişkilendirme becerileri üzerindeki etkisini incelemiştir. Çalışmada ön test-son test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desen kullanılmış olup, 61 öğrenci (deney grubu n=31, kontrol grubu n=30) araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Deney grubunda entegre 5E-CRA modeli kullanılarak öğretim gerçekleştirilirken, kontrol grubunda geleneksel öğretim uygulanmıştır. Veriler, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen "Paralelkenar ve Eşkenar Dörtgen Kavram Değerlendirme Aracı" kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bulgular, entegre yaklaşımın paralelkenar kavram imajı (d=2.78), eşkenar dörtgen kavram imajı (d=2.42) ve matematiksel ilişkilendirme becerileri (d=2.36) üzerinde çok büyük pozitif etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar, 5E-CRA entegrasyonunun geometrik kavram öğretiminde geleneksel yöntemlere etkili bir alternatif sunduğunu göstermekte ve somuttan soyuta sistematik geçişin kavramsal anlayış ve ilişkilendirme becerilerinin gelişimindeki kritik rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, matematik öğretmenlerine manipülatif kullanımı ve kademeli öğretim stratejileri konusunda rehberlik sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uysal, F. (2025). 5E and CRA integration: Effects on geometric concept images and connection skills. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 75, 388–409. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1715777

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Balgalmış, E., & Işık-Ceyhan, E. (2019). The effect of instruction aimed at developing quadrilaterals’ connection skills on 7th grade students’ achievement levels. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 130-156.
  2. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843-908). Information Age Publishing.
  3. Bouck, E., Park, J., & Nickell, B. (2017). Using the concrete-representational-abstract approach to support students with intellectual disability to solve change-making problems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.006
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
  5. Businskas, A. M. (2008). Conversations about connections: How secondary mathematics teachers conceptualize and contend with mathematical connections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University.
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. BSCS.
  7. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS.
  8. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
  9. Caviedes, S., De Gamboa, G., & Badillo, E. (2024). Mathematical connections involved in area measurement processes. Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2024.2370333
  10. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 420-464). Macmillan Publishing Co.
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Đokić, O., Boričić, M. M. D., & Jelić, M. (2021). Comparing ICT with physical manipulative supported learning of 3D geometry in elementary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(8), 1623-1654. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211001319
  13. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1-2), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
  14. Duval, R. (2007). Cognitive functioning and the understanding of mathematical processes of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 137-161). Sense Publishers.
  15. Ebner, S., MacDonald, M. K., Grekov, P., & Aspiranti, K. B. (2024). A meta-analytic review of the concrete-representational-abstract math approach. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 40(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/09388982241292299
  16. Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56-59.
  17. Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., & Schweck, K. B. (2024). Using CRA-I to teach fraction and decimal concepts to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231176545
  18. Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327467
  19. Flores, M. M., & Hinton, V. M. (2022). Use of the concrete-representational-abstract instructional sequence to improve mathematical outcomes for elementary students with EBD. Beyond Behavior, 31(1), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742956211072421
  20. Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.08.003
  21. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1-2), 3-20.
  22. Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of geometric thinking among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 3, 1-196.
  23. Gutiérrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/749076
  24. Hatisaru, V., Stacey, K., & Star, J. (2024). Mathematical connections in preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ solution strategies to algebra problems. Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 33-55.
  25. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 70-95). Cambridge University Press.
  26. Hu, J., Gao, C., & Liu, Y. (2017). Study of the 5E instructional model to improve the instructional design process of novice teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), 1257-1267. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050718
  27. Huda, S., Kharisma, H. N., Qoma, I., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). How mathematical reasoning abilities can be improved? A study case at Islamic boarding school. Desimal: Jurnal Matematika, 3(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.24042/djm.v3i1.5320
  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). RoutledgeFalmer.
  29. Jones, K., & Tzekaki, M. (2016). Research on the teaching and learning of geometry. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 109-149). Sense Publishers.
  30. Leong, Y. H., Ho, W. K., & Cheng, L. P. (2015). Concrete-pictorial-abstract: Surveying its origins and charting its future. The Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 1-18.
  31. Lin, J., Cheng, M., Chang, Y., Li, H., Chang, J., & Lin, D. (2014). Learning activities that combine science magic activities with the 5E instructional model to influence secondary-school students’ attitudes to science. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 415-426. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1103a
  32. Mathframework. (2024). Making connections strengthens learning. Retrieved from https://mathframework.com/numerate-environment-3/making-connections-strengthens-learning/
  33. MEB. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_12/03105347_pisa_2018_turkiye_on_raporu.pdf
  34. MEB. (2020). TIMSS 2019 Türkiye ön raporu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_12/10173505_No15_TIMSS_2019_Turkiye_On_Raporu_Guncel.pdf
  35. Monaghan, F. (2000). What difference does it make? Children’s views of the differences between some quadrilaterals. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004175020394
  36. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2020-12/TIMSS%202019-International-Results-in-Mathematics-and-Science.pdf
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  38. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
  39. Polanin, J. R., Austin, M., Taylor, J. A., Steingut, R. R., Rodgers, M. A., & Williams, R. (2024). Effects of the 5E instructional model: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
  40. Prosser, S. K., & Bismarck, S. F. (2023). Concrete–representational–abstract (CRA) instructional approach in an algebra I inclusion class: Knowledge retention versus students’ Perception. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101061
  41. Putri, N. N. W. D., Astawa, I. W. P., & Ardana, I. M. (2021). Improving students’ conceptual understanding through GeoGebra-assisted “5E” learning cycle: Is it effective? Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 54(1), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v54i1.25219
  42. Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Font, V., & Rodríguez-Vásquez, F. M. (2022). A new view about connections: The mathematical connections established by a teacher when teaching the derivative. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(6), 1231-1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1799254
  43. Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174-186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24570063
  44. Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., de Villiers, M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K. (2016). Recent research on geometry education: An ICME-13 survey team report. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(5), 691-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6
  45. Şimşek, Z. Z. (2019). Investigating pre-service teachers’ ability to recognize and classify geometric concepts hierarchically. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 680-710. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.491564
  46. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
  47. Tessema, G., Michael, K., & Areaya, S. (2024). Realist hands-on learning approach and its contributions to learners’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills on solid geometry. Pedagogical Research, 9(1), em0186. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14096
  48. Ültay, N., & Çalık, M. (2016). A comparison of different teaching designs of ‘acids and bases’ subject. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(1), 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1297/eurasia.2016.1422a
  49. Usiskin, Z., Griffin, J., Witonsky, D., & Willmore, E. (2008). The classification of quadrilaterals: A study in definition. Information Age Publishing.
  50. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Press.
  51. Van Hiele, P. M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310-316.
  52. Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept images and common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometrical concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177-184). University of California.
  53. Witzel, B. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3, 49-60.
  54. Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00068