1

Teaching Strategies for Area of Quadrilaterals

Shuji Miller

College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

EDCI 7354: Teaching and Learning Geometric Concepts

Dr. Hugo Leal

November 22, 2020

 2

Teaching Strategies for Area of Quadrilaterals

The measurement of area is stressed as an essential learning objective for students according to the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for

Best Practices (2010). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also stresses area as a significant

topic of mathematical learning, with it being incorporated in the geometry and measurement strands of many

mathematical curriculums (NCTM, 2000). Though area is stressed as a core topic in geometric learning,

recent mathematical achievement assessments reveal poor performance in this domain among elementary

children, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), revealing that only 24% of U.S.

fourth-graders could correctly find the area of a square given its’ perimeter (Huang & Witz, 2013; Martin &

Strutchens, 2000; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). The causes for such low geometric

understanding can be attributed to a variety of factors such as poor pedagogical knowledge by teachers,

proper implementation of instructional tools, or lack of learning opportunities to foster mathematical

connections and conceptual understanding in student thinking (Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2000; Yesildere,

2010; Kamina & Iyer, 2009). Therefore, this research based paper aims to outline methods in improving

visualization, conceptual and procedural understanding, and mathematical connections among area concepts

of quadrilaterals through the use of concrete physical tools, the incorporation of technology, and pedagogical

emphasis on rectangular arrays.

Concrete Tools

Benefits

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) advocates for the use of representations of

geometric concepts to model and interpret not only physical, but social and underlying mathematical

phenomena. Concrete manipulatives such as base ten blocks, geoboards, counters, and tangrams can help

students of all ages to explore, visualize, and understand mathematical properties and behavior (NCTM,

2014). Research conducted by Hawkins (2007) showed that the incorporation of tools assists in constructing

connections between mathematical ideas and form mathematical relationships for deeper understanding (as

cited in Yesildere, 2010). Geoboards for example can be used to support learning strands such as
 3

measurement and space through the construction of various polygons. When students can construct and

deconstruct shapes, such as a rectangle into two congruent right triangles, or a trapezoid into a quadrilateral

and triangle to form a rectangle, they can gain a conceptual idea about the origins for various area formulas

(Huang & Witz, 2011). Scandrett (2015) also describes how geoboards have great problem-solving

capabilities such as the use of overlapping composite shapes to solve areas of regular and irregular polygons

which can engage students in an explorative approach of area solving.

The use of tools such as tiling squares or dot paper can help students to conceptually relate the idea

of area, as the amount of quantity enclosed within a 2-dimensional region (Lehrer, 2003; NCTM, 2000).

These tools can also help students gain a concrete foundation of rectangular arrays that assist them in

understanding the row and column nature of the multiplicative property of area (Huang & Witz, 2011).

Kamina and Iyer (2009) also advocate for the incorporation of significant mathematical symbolizations and

abstractions into concrete manipulatives (such as symbols for congruency, right angles, and parallelism) so

that students can make greater connections from concrete representations to abstract forms of geometric

thinking. In their scenario, they suggest label markings of congruency on square tiles to show how

decomposition of a square can transform into triangles and parallelograms to reveal underlying properties of

area formula relationships, thereby bridging the gap from concrete to abstraction (Kamina & Iyer, 2009).

Through the use of concrete manipulatives, students can not only derive a physical representation of area

models, but visualize figures, manipulate geometric properties, and use them as tools for problem-solving to

make connections between the physical realm of area measurement to more abstract concepts later on.

Critiques

Though research has shown great benefits of concrete manipulatives in the teaching and learning of

area measurements, many concerns about its’ benefits are raised due to the implementation of such tools.

Outhred and Mitchelmore (2000) explain how concrete materials may sometimes conceal the very geometric

relationships that are trying to be illustrated. In a study conducted by Doig, Cheeseman, and Lindsay (1995).

8-year-old students used both wooden and paper tiles to construct rectangular arrays of a given surface (as

cited in Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2000). Though the students had more success with wooden tiles in
 4

successfully covering the area, they could not relate the concrete materials to mathematical concepts due to

the ease of lining shapes up next to each other, whereas the paper tiles provided deeper understanding

because they had to overcome challenges of possible overlapping. Manipulatives help foster conceptual

understanding to promote the learning of abstract concepts but are not a guaranteed success if it is

implemented solely for fun engagement purposes (Kamina & Iyer, 2009). The physical tools must form

connections to underlying mathematical properties and concepts for it to truly have an impact on the learning

of area.

As Yesildere’s (2010) study showed, the incorporation of concrete tools and manipulatives in a task

was not sufficient in improving student growth or understanding when implemented simply as a visual aid or

demonstration. NCTM (2014) encourages instead these manipulatives be used for investigative and

exploratory purposes, in which students receive adequate time to discover, relate, and understand

relationships between concrete and abstract ideas. This is not to refute the effectiveness of concrete

manipulatives in the learning of area, but more so the emphasis for teachers to have pedagogical knowledge

on the implementation of these tools. When incorporated into instructional curriculum, teachers must

integrate tools as a bridge to foster conceptual understanding and demonstrate teaching practices in

questioning and guidance that align to making connections among student thinking.

Technology

Benefits

Computer technology is vastly improving the learning of mathematics by providing rich

environments in which relationships between geometric shapes, views, measurement, and problem-solving

can be made (Özçakir & Çakiroğlu, 2019). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014)

advocates the integration of technology within instruction to support students’ exploration of mathematics to

promote procedural and conceptual sense-making by providing an alternative method to engage in the

visualization, reasoning, and manipulation of mathematical situations. Though studies have shown that

students can procedurally memorize the area formula of quadrilaterals, students seem to possess great

misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the conservation and application of area, as well as the
 5

reasonings and justification behind its’ use (Huang & Witz, 2013). Technology can assist students in making

the bridges between procedure and concept by allowing students to investigate properties of quadrilaterals in

a manipulative environment that demonstrates derivation and relationships among rectangles, squares,

trapezoids, and parallelograms, thereby fostering relational understanding of area formulas and properties

among the quadrilaterals (NCTM, 2014; Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2000).

Dynamic Geometry Software

Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) such as Geometer’s Sketchpad and GeoGebra have been shown

to significantly improve the learning of geometry, especially in topics such as area and perimeter (Kellogg,

2010). Programs such as GeoGebra allow students to digitally construct, measure, transform, and manipulate

geometric shapes in a manner that may be difficult or impossible through physical tools, to allow students a

new way to visualize and engage in geometric reasoning. In a study conducted by Özçakir & Çakiroğlu,

(2019), over 75 seventh graders participated in research that compared traditional means of teaching area of

quadrilaterals versus mathematical tasks based off GeoGebra. The research showed that when students

engaged in activities about forming an area formula for parallelograms, rhombi, and trapezoids, as well as

identifying relationships between perimeter and area, the DGS group had increased student achievement in

the understanding among quadrilateral relationships, concepts, and formulas. NCTM (2014) explains how

DGS such as GeoGebra allows exploration of geometric conjectures because well-constructed figures can be

manipulated in a manner that maintains underlying relationships and structural properties that allow students

a better comprehension of geometric reasoning.

In addition, Özçakir and Çakiroğlu’s (2019) study revealed that DGS engaged students improved in

their understanding of area and perimeter of quadrilaterals due to their progress from the first level of van

Hiele Geometric Thinking (visual) to a higher level (level two – informal deduction) involving geometric

properties by demonstrating the hierarchical relationships between quadrilaterals in a more effective manner.

Dynamic Geometry Software allows the capabilities to display, measure, and record real time measures such

as perimeter, angles, and areas as students engage in the manipulation of the shapes. This allows an easier

and more fluid approach to form connections among quadrilateral properties. This in turn results in a better
 6

conceptual understanding of their understanding of area and formulas. Technology not only extends the

capabilities of concrete models in terms of live measurement and manipulation, but also increases motivation

and engagement when exploring area and perimeter-based concepts (NCTM, 2000; Özçakir & Çakiroğlu,

2019).

Limitations

Though Dynamic Geometry Software has shown great benefits in improving the learning of area in

quadrilaterals (Özçakir & Çakiroğlu, 2019), critics propose that hands-on concrete manipulatives should be

used to support students in visualization and foundational understanding before moving on to abstract tasks

on computers (Way, 2006 as cited in Scandrett, 2015). Technology in some scenarios be inaccessible by

students simply because of resources, or knowledge of how to use it. Critics further suggest that though

technology seems to offer a greater extension of capabilities in measurement and manipulation, struggling

students who are still at the first level of the van Hiele level of thinking may struggle with such abstract

constructions and relationships and respond better to physical stimuli that they can touch and manipulate,

better meeting their appropriate cognitive level (Kamina & Iyer, 2009; Van de Walle, 2001). Technology

supporters are backed by research such as the one conducted by Baki, Kosa, and Guven (2011), which argues

that students in the DGS group performed better than those in the group learning with physical manipulatives

(as cited in Özçakir & Çakiroğlu, 2019).

Despite the debate between physical and digital manipulative, researchers such as Sarama and

Clements (2009) argues that both serve equitable benefits in the learning of geometric concepts. With the

use of technology rising, such as touch screen tablets becoming more accessible to school instruction,

physical characteristics are being integrated into the digital (as cited in NCTM, 2014). Regardless of the

dispute of which tool is better, countless research has shown that technology integrated tasks undoubtedly

improve the conceptual and relational understanding of area related formulas and properties by providing an

accessible bridge from representational form, to an abstract one. There are both positive and negative

aspects of both concrete and technological tools, and both should be integrated within a teacher’s repertoire

of instruction strategies when teaching quadrilateral area concepts.

 7

Rectangular Arrays

Multiplication Versus Addition

Though the action of physically covering a rectangle with unit squares comprises the experiential

origins of area, this one-dimensional action of counting units suggest an additive approach, rather than a

multiplicative process of relating the area to the linear dimensions of a figure (Outhred & Mitchelmore,

2000). Therefore, using rectangular arrays as the structural link to the tiling of squares, students can gain a

better transition from an additive way of thinking and into a multiplicative mentality. Huang and Witz

(2013) suggests that to overcome this misconception, more experience with exploration of the formulas for

area should focus less on numerical calculations, but conceptual understanding of the multiplication property

within the row-by-column structure of rectangular arrays. Martin and Strutchens (2000) further addresses

issues of procedural concentration in the learning of area, emphasizing the need for conceptual understanding

of length and area as more than the sum of discreet unit squares, but rather continuous quantities that can be

found through multiplicative reasoning. Failure to understand this multiplicative nature behind the area

formula results in shallowed procedural reliance of finding areas within quadrilaterals, forcing the use of

calculations with no connection to context and conceptual problem-solving (Huang & Witz, 2011).

Conceptual and Procedural Understanding

NCTM (2014) emphasizes the need for both conceptual and procedural fluency to foster

mathematical understanding and proficiency. However, Kellogg (2010) suggests that too many teachers fall

under an ignorance about mathematical teaching as the ability for students to procedurally memorize or apply

formulas as a reflection of understanding. Among the twenty-two fourth graders who participated and were

interviewed in Huang & Witz’s (2013) study, only one individual could provide a conceptual interpretation

of area describing an array approach, while many relied on a procedural recitation of the area formula. The

study further showed that though these students had a good memorization of the formula, they did not have

an accurate conception understanding, and their concrete experience of tiling and knowledge of area

formulas were not well connected. Though procedural aspects of problem-solving are important in

mathematics, forming connections between it and conceptual ideas result in shallow demonstrations of
 8

mathematical understanding and low retention of mathematical concepts (NCTM, 2014). Misconceptions

such as these in the multiplicative structure of area can lead students to not observe aspects such as units

covered on sides of figures, relationships between generalized forms of formulas for triangles, rectangles,

and parallelograms, or two-dimensional structures of arrays (Huang & Witz, 2011).

Huang & Witz (2011) sought to provide instructional implications of focusing on procedural

elements versus conceptual in the teaching of area, attributing the lack of understanding in the multiplicative

properties of arrays as a major obstacle in developing conceptual understanding. In their study of 120 fourth

graders, three groups were established to explore these effects: Area Measurement (AM – emphasizing

numerical calculations), Geometric Motions (GM – emphasized conceptual understanding and rationale

behind area formulas), and Geometric Motion and Area Measurement (GMAM- emphasizing both

conceptual and procedural aspects). Results showed that students in the GMAM group showed the greatest

amount of student achievement due to their ability to connect mathematical concepts and underlying

formulas to significant problem-solving explanations and calculations. Students in the GMAM group were

assigned tasks to enhance the view of rectangular arrays using decompositions and re-composition of shapes,

discovery of formulas, and application of problems from a conceptual and numerical derivation. Results

concluded that the ability to engage in a more sophisticated form of thinking in the structure of rectangular

arrays and multiplicative strategies in problem-solving, fosters the underlying strategic knowledge of area,

which is comprised of both conceptual and procedural understanding (Lehrer, 2003; Huang & Witz, 2013).

Research Findings

Through investigative research, it can be concluded that physical tools and manipulatives,

technological software, and pedagogical approaches of multiplicative rectangular arrays provide an increase

in the understanding and achievement in the learning of area concepts. Many students struggle with the

ability to visualize and connect concrete representations of quadrilaterals to its’ underlying conceptual

formulas and applications (Kamina & Iyer, 2009). Physical tools allow for the students to engage in the

exploration of area concepts at an appropriate level of geometric thinking, and form foundations and

connections to abstract concepts in the process (Yesildere, 2010). Technological tools can go beyond
 9

concrete manipulatives through its’ ability to manipulate, measure, and maintain geometric properties

throughout investigation to foster hierarchical relationships among quadrilaterals and the derivation of their

formulas (Özçakir & Çakiroğlu, 2019). Though disputes about benefits of concrete vs technological tools

remain, both have been proven to improve student achievement in the topic of understanding area compared

to traditional means of instruction (NCTM, 2014; Huang & Witz, 2011). By incorporating these tools using

a pedagogical approach that demonstrates the concept of area as a two-dimensional multiplicative rectangular

array, students can gain a conceptual and procedural grasp of the meanings behind the definition of area, as

well as the applications and calculations necessary for successful problem-solving (Huang & Witz, 2013).

Through the use of both physical and digital tools, and an emphasis on structural meanings and multiplicative

properties, teachers can foster a better learning environment for the study of area in quadrilaterals.
 10

References

Huang, H. M. E., & Witz, K. G. (2011). Developing children's conceptual understanding of area

measurement: A curriculum and teaching experiment. Learning and instruction, 21(1), 1-13.

Huang, H.-M. E., & Witz, K. G. (2013). Children’s conceptions of area measurement and their strategies for

solving area measurement problems. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 10–26

Kamina, P., & Iyer, N. N. (2009). From concrete to abstract: Teaching for transfer of learning when using

manipulatives. In Proceedings of the Northeastern Educational Research Association (pp. 1-9).

Rocky Hill, CT: NERA.

Kellogg, M. S. (2010). Preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge related to area and

perimeter: A teacher development experiment investigating anchored instruction with web-based

microworlds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida, Florida.

Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. A research companion to principles and

standards for school mathematics, 179-191.

Martin, W. G., & Strutchens, M. E. (2000). Geometry and measurement. Results from the seventh

mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 193-234.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and

mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results (NCES 2011–455). Washington, DC: Institute

of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:

Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School

Officers (NGA & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington,

DC: Authors.

Outhred, L. N., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2000). Young children’s intuitive understanding of rectangular area
 11

measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 144–167.

Özçakir, B., & Çakiroğlu, E. (2019). Effects of Dynamic Geometry Activities on Seventh Graders’

Achievement in Area of Quadrilaterals. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and

Learning, 20(2), 257-271.

Scandrett, H. (2015). Using Geoboards in Primary Mathematics: Going... Going... Gone?. Australian

Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(2), 29-32.

Van de Walle, J. A. (2001). Geometric thinking and concepts. Elementary and middle school

mathematics: Teaching developmentally (4th ed., pp. 306-312). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Yesildere, S. (2010). Teachers’ Influence on Integration of Tools into Mathematics Teaching. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 6.