1. Introduction

This chapter presents theoretically and empirically how the integration of mathematics dictionary during mathematics instruction needs to be made a reality. The emphasis of the chapter is to demystify the myth that dictionaries are for language lessons. Hence, it is for all mathematics teachers to integrate mathematics dictionaries into their lessons. At a deeper level, the chapter highlights how to integrate mathematics dictionary into the instruction of geometry to promote critical thinking and the skill of information seeking.

However, there is an existing research on the benefits of integrating mathematics dictionary into mathematics instruction [1, 2]; however, most teachers do not bother themselves integrating the dictionary into their lessons. Most teachers stick to the same traditional methods of teaching where no resources are used to enhance students' geometrical understanding that promotes critical thinking [3].

There is an increase concern that most students underperform in geometry due to vocabulary and terminology that are not well established, but teachers still give it little attention [4].

One of the most important highlights in research is that dictionaries develop in students the use of vocabulary and terminology with their true or multiple meanings [2]. The chapter uses both theoretical and empirical evidence to demonstrate how mathematics dictionary can influence students' understanding of geometrical vocabulary and terminology which is a challenge in geometry mostly. Research shows that the reason why most students fail geometry is due to lack of well-grounded knowledge on geometrical vocabulary and terminology and its abstractness [5]. Misunderstandings and alternative conceptions which are a result of lack of proper geometrical terminology are addressed when mathematics dictionary is integrated into the lesson. However, with the integration of mathematics dictionary in the lesson students are made to be focussed, this leads to enrichment and enhancement of the mathematical success of students now and in the future [2]. Students become focused since they get empowered with mathematical vocabulary and terminology which are the essential elements for understanding geometrical concepts. The integration of mathematics dictionary into the lesson also promotes the skill of information seeking which enhances self-dependent learning.

Clements and Battista [16] suggest that beyond the levels of van Hiele, there is a pre-recognition level (level 0) of geometry thinking. The argument is that students who cannot differentiate a shape from a cluster of shapes should be considered not yet operating at the visual level of van Hiele's theory but to be considered at the prerecognition level [16]. This contribution adds up the levels of geometric thinking to

Mathematics Dictionary: Enhancing Students' Geometrical Vocabulary and Terminology

Van Hiele [15] proposes that to allow the sequential transition of students' ability of geometric thinking from one level to the next, teaching and learning must be

Phase 1: Inquiry phase. In this phase, resources lead students to discover and

Phase 2: Direct orientation. In this phase, activities are presented in such a way that their features appear steadily to the students, i.e., through brainteasers

Phase 3: Explication. The terms are introduced, and students are encouraged to

Phase 4: Free orientation. The teacher presents a variety of activities to be done using different approaches, and this instils in students capabilities to become

Phase 5: Integration. Students are given opportunities to summarise what they have acquired during instruction, possibly by creating their personal activities.

2. The integration of mathematics dictionary into teaching and learning

The main research study was informed by the mixed method paradigm defined by [17] as the unification of quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The mixed

i. To ensure that the outcomes are instructive, comprehensive, composed and

ii. For triangulation which is aimed at validation, deepening and widening the

The emphasis is that the mixed method approach gives a wide range of oppor-

The cohorts of 56 eighth grade volunteers wrote the diagnostic test with an aim:

i. To find more on students' alternative conceptions and misunderstandings

ii. To capture and explore the students' conceptual understanding of geometry

use them in their discussion and written geometry exercises.

five.

guided by the five-phase structure, namely:

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86409

that disclose symmetrical sections.

more skilled in what they already know.

for students' geometric proficiency

method approach has been utilised for the following reasons:

understanding of the viewpoint being studied [19]

2.1 Methodology

39

convectional [18]

tunities to analyse the collected data.

regarding geometric concepts

before employing the intervention

realise definite features of geometric figures.

Research has noted that one of the factors that act as a barrier to learning of mathematics by deaf or hard-of-hearing students is difficulties with language [6]. On the other hand, [7–9] argue that mathematics language and vocabulary also pose challenges to all students. The challenges are different from ordinary reading situations for the reason that they are more of mathematical terminological challenges. In support of the recent statement [10], a research study found out that the highest percentage of errors students committed emanated from the use of technical words in mathematics. According to [11–13], the improvement of mathematical vocabulary enhances students' mathematical proficiency.

However, research reveals that mathematical proficiency rests on a constant growth and balance of sophisticated components of critical element skills such as concepts, procedures, algorithms, computation, problem solving and language [14].

In order to explore the influence of mathematics dictionary on students' learning of geometry, the study was underpinned by [15] a model of geometric thinking. The model is described as follows:


### Mathematics Dictionary: Enhancing Students' Geometrical Vocabulary and Terminology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86409

Clements and Battista [16] suggest that beyond the levels of van Hiele, there is a pre-recognition level (level 0) of geometry thinking. The argument is that students who cannot differentiate a shape from a cluster of shapes should be considered not yet operating at the visual level of van Hiele's theory but to be considered at the prerecognition level [16]. This contribution adds up the levels of geometric thinking to five.

Van Hiele [15] proposes that to allow the sequential transition of students' ability of geometric thinking from one level to the next, teaching and learning must be guided by the five-phase structure, namely:


Phase 5: Integration. Students are given opportunities to summarise what they have acquired during instruction, possibly by creating their personal activities.
