Fostering Students’ Creativity through Van Hiele’s 5 phase-Based Tangram Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether Van Hiele’s 5 phase-based tangrams activities could help tofoster creativity among Grade Three primary school students. Students’ creativity was investigated in terms ofTorrance’s Figural Test of creative thinking: Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstractness of title, andResistance to a premature closure. The study further examined students’ responses to learning experience intangram activities. A pre-test and post-test single group experimental design was employed in the study. Thisresearch design involved assessment on the students’ creativity based on the figural constructing task which wasimplemented prior and subsequent to the intervention. A total of 144 Grade Three students took part in the study.The students learned Two-dimensional geometry and Symmetry through the Van Hiele’s 5 phases of learningusing tangram. The intervention took place for 3 hours. Paired samples t-tests which compared the mean scoresof pre- and post- figural test were computed to determine if a significant difference existed. The results showedthat there were significant differences in mean scores between pre- and post-figural test. The in-depth analysisabout the five dimensions of Torrance’s creativity found that the applied intervention was only significant inimproving students’ elaboration, no significant changes in students’ fluency and abstractness of title, andsignificant dropping performance in originality and resistance to premature closure. Generally, students felt thatthe tangram activities had provided an opportunity for them to think creatively. In conclusion, this study showsthat the tangram, when integrated with van Hiele’s five Phases of learning is able to foster student’s creativity ingeometric lessons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".