Talk:Van Hiele model

Untitled

Can I quote so much material as this? Or would a summary be better? --Math Teacher 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Was the material you put all quoted? In any case, I have added much more without quoting anybody. I think this article should now be renamed the "van Hiele theory" or "van Hiele model" with the historical part at the beginning. The five levels are the most well known part of the theory, but there is more to it than that.

--seberle (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'm going to rename this page. --seberle (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this about?

Here's this article's first paragraph:

The Van Hiele model or theory originated in 1957 in the doctoral dissertations of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre van Hiele at Utrecht University, in the Netherlands. The Soviets did research on the theory in the 1960s and integrated their findings into their curricula. American researchers did several large studies on the van Hiele theory in the 1980s and Pierre van Hiele published Structure and Insight in 1986, further describing his theory.

After reading all the way through that, I don't know whether the Van Hiele model is:

• A mathematical model used in earthquake prediction; or
• A mathematical model of the stock market; or
• A proposed way of organizing courts of law; or
• A military strategy; or
• A system of forest management; or
• something else?

That should be in the first sentence! Michael Hardy (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful pointers. The article should be more acceptable now. --seberle (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The 5th section does not make sense, see bellow: 1. Fixed sequence: the levels are hierarchical. Students cannot "skip" a level.[5] The van Hieles claim that much of the difficulty experienced by geometry students is due to being taught at the Deduction level when they have not yet achieved the Abstraction level.

Deduction level and abstraction level should be refered to as they are in the section preceding. also, fixed sequence should probably not be numbered.

I'm not sure I understand either of these problems. What precisely does not make sense? In what way are the Deduction and Abstraction levels not being referred to as they were in the preceding section? Why should Fixed Sequence not be numbered? Could you clarify your concerns further? Also, why do you refer to this section as the "5th section"? --seberle (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)