0% found this document useful (0 votes)
115 views

Developing Students' Geometric Thinking

The document discusses the development of students' geometric thinking. It begins by outlining the long history of geometry, dating back to Euclid's Elements from 300 BC. It then discusses how the teaching of geometry in U.S. schools initially focused on deductive reasoning, and how producing original proofs later became more common. The document goes on to define normative geometric thinking using "habits of mind" like proportional reasoning and exploring geometric systems. It emphasizes understanding how students' geometric thinking develops as a goal for instruction.

Uploaded by

Oliver Ipo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
115 views

Developing Students' Geometric Thinking

The document discusses the development of students' geometric thinking. It begins by outlining the long history of geometry, dating back to Euclid's Elements from 300 BC. It then discusses how the teaching of geometry in U.S. schools initially focused on deductive reasoning, and how producing original proofs later became more common. The document goes on to define normative geometric thinking using "habits of mind" like proportional reasoning and exploring geometric systems. It emphasizes understanding how students' geometric thinking develops as a goal for instruction.

Uploaded by

Oliver Ipo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 46

Chapter 10

Developing Students’
Geometric Thinking

T he teaching of geometry has a long, rich history. One of the most important
works in the discipline, Euclid’s Elements, dates back to approximately 300
b.c. In it, Euclid compiled and extended the work of his predecessors. Boyer
and Merzbach (1989) characterized the Elements as the most influential textbook in
history, and speculated that it may be second only to the Bible in terms of number of
editions published. Euclid’s Elements reflects the Greek commitment to establishing
and teaching a deductive system of thought in mathematics. Studying such a system
can be contrasted with learning geometry for more practical purposes, such as deter-
mining measurements. Even though the Greek word geometria is rooted in geo,
meaning “earth,” and “metron,” meaning measurement (Rubenstein & Schwartz,
2000), the Elements does not emphasize the practical measurement aspect. Between
the time Elements was written and the establishment of modern schools, the question
of whether to emphasize the theoretical or practical aspects of geometry has per-
sisted (Stamper, 1906).
The first attempts to bring geometry to schools in the United States focused on
the study of deductive reasoning. Geometry made its way into the high school cur-
riculum in the 1840s as colleges added it to their admissions requirements (Herbst,
2002). During this period, students were expected to memorize proofs from text-
books with expositions of Euclidean geometry. It was not until near the beginning of
the 20th century that having students produce their own original geometric proofs
became a widespread practice. The move toward having students produce original
proofs was largely catalyzed by Bull Wentworth’s textbook series, which became
known for its inclusion of “originals” and came to dominate the textbook market
(Donoghue, 2003).
At the outset of the 21st century, new questions about middle and high school
geometry exist. Two major questions that have emerged in the past few decades are
(1) how does geometric thinking develop? and (2) what role should dynamic software
packages play in teaching and learning geometry? Researchers have devoted a great
deal of attention to each of these questions. Their findings have important implica-
tions for teachers and, accordingly, will be discussed in detail in this chapter.

307
308–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

What Is Geometric Thinking?


To understand how to support the development of students’ geometric thinking, it
can be helpful to begin by considering its nature. Geometric thinking can be exam-
ined from two different perspectives: (1) the thinking of mathematicians as they are
engaged in doing geometry (hereafter referred to as normative geometric think-
ing), and (2) the thinking exhibited by students as they learn geometry. Since the
ultimate goal of instruction should be to help students engage in normative geomet-
ric thinking, it is important to understand the maturation process leading to its attain-
ment. To provide perspective on normative thinking, Cuoco, Goldenberg, and Mark’s
(1996) geometric habits of mind are considered below. Then, work inspired by the
research of Dina and Pierre van Hiele (van Heile, 1986) is discussed as a means of
understanding students’ thinking while learning geometry.

Normative Geometric Thinking: Habits of Mind

Geometers exhibit a variety of habits of mind in carrying out geometric investigations.


These include using proportional reasoning, using several languages at once, using a
single language for everything, reasoning about systems, studying change and invari-
ance, and analyzing shapes (Cuoco et al., 1996). As a starting point for understanding
normative geometric thinking, each habit of mind is considered and illustrated below.
Proportional reasoning is a vital element in reasoning about things such as vec-
tors, fractals, and theorems about planar objects. As an illustration of the central role
of proportional reasoning in geometry, consider the diagram shown in Figure 10.1.
Suppose we know that circle C in Figure 10.1 has a radius of 5, AB is a diameter,
BD is a tangent, and m BD = 7. From that information, it is possible to determine m AE.
First, note that m AB = 10 because it is twice the length of the radius. In addition,
m∠ABD = 90° because the intersection of a tangent line to a circle and its diameter

Figure 10.1   Diagram for a geometric proportional reasoning problem.

B
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–309

forms a right angle. This means that ABD is a right triangle, so the Pythagorean theorem
can be applied to determine m AD . Proportional reasoning then becomes the key to
solving the problem if one looks for a triangle similar to triangle ABD that contains AE.
This sort of proportional reasoning problem often appears on teacher certification
exams (Educational Testing Service, 2009).

Determine m AE in Figure 10.1. Show all of your work and explain how you reached your STOP TO
conclusion. REFLECT

In addition to using proportional reasoning, Cuoco and colleagues (1996) noted


that there are times when geometers use several languages at once and times when
they use a single language for everything. It is often the case that multiple techniques
can be used to solve a problem. Coordinate geometry and vectors are among the
languages that can be brought to bear in solving a single geometric problem. While
these languages often come to the aid of geometers, geometry itself assists many
other branches of mathematics. Euclidean geometry, for example, provides language
to talk about algebraic objects such as the coordinate (3, 4) (a point), y = 3x + 1
(a line), and x + 2y + 3z = 1 (a plane). Other branches of mathematics, such as num-
ber theory, can also be simplified by using the geometric concept of point. Number
theorists call the points in the Cartesian plane with integer coordinates lattice points.
Lattice points can be considered fundamental objects of study in number theory.
Essentially, the relationship between the language of geometry and that of other
branches of mathematics is reciprocal. Geometry often comes to the aid of other
branches of mathematics, just as tools from other branches can be useful for geomet-
ric problems.
Another hallmark of geometric reasoning is the richness of the systems that
geometers construct and work within. Euclid’s geometric system was based on five pos-
tulates. Controversies surrounding the fifth postulate, often called the parallel postu-
late, provoked the creation of several alternative, non-Euclidean systems. Referring to
°
Figure10.2,
 the
parallel
 postulate essentially states that if m∠CAB
 + m∠ DBA < 180 ,
then CA and DB must eventually intersect on the side of AB where ∠CAB and
∠DBA are situated. Many efforts were made to prove that Euclid’s parallel postu-
late was actually just a consequence of the previous four. One individual who
attempted such a proof was Nikolai Lobachevsky. In the early 19th century, he
came to believe that no such proof was possible, and his attention shifted to
designing a valid geometric system based in part on an axiom directly contradicting
the parallel postulate (Boyer & Merzbach, 1989). Upon the publication and wide-
spread acceptance of his results, normative modes of geometric reasoning were
permanently shaken. Euclidean geometry was no longer considered the sole arbi-
ter of absolute truth, since Lobachevsky’s geometry, and several others, proved to
be logically consistent as well. Geometers henceforth did not restrict their investi-
gations to the Euclidean plane, and they began to study new ideas such as spheri-
cal and hyperbolic geometry.
310–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.2   Illustrating Euclid’s parallel postulate.

A
C

As geometers work within systems, they often explore characteristics of geomet-


ric objects that change as well as those that remain invariant. To illustrate the explora-
tion of change, consider the three diagrams shown in Figure 10.3.

Figure 10.3   Changing the location of the intersection of two segments.

A K T

D H Y W
F X
E L Z
G
B J U
C I V

Geometers are interested in exploring such matters as how the arc lengths and
angles in Figure 10.3 relate to one another. In the circle farthest to the left, the point
of intersection between two chords lies in the interior of the circle. In the second
diagram, the intersection point lies on the circle. Finally, in the third diagram, it lies
on the exterior. Arc and angle relationships change as the point is moved. Along with
change, invariance is interesting to geometers. Cuoco and colleagues (1996) noted
that looking for invariants under geometric transformation is a particular point of
interest. For example, identifying points that do not move under transformation can
help one find the location of the center of a rotation.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–311

Given the preceding examples of normative geometric Implementing the Common Core
thinking, it probably goes without saying that studying
shapes is another fundamental geometric habit of mind. See Homework Task 1 to use dynamic
Three categories pertinent to the study of shape are classi- geometry software to explore the
fication, analysis, and representation (Cuoco et al., 1996). diagrams shown in Figure 10.3, which
Shapes can be classified into categories based on attributes lead students to “understand and
such as congruence, similarity, symmetry, self-similarity, and apply theorems about circles” and
topology (Senechal, 1990). Analysis in geometry regularly “find arc lengths” (Content Standard
includes looking for lines of symmetry, using lattices, and G-C).
dissecting shapes (Senechal, 1990). Representations can
come in the form of physical models of geometric objects,
maps, shadows and lenses, drawings, and computer graphics (Senechal, 1990). These
forms of representation support visual thinking needed for advancements in mathe-
matics and science.

Students’ Geometric Thinking: van Hiele Levels

It is important for teachers to know that acquisition of normative geometric habits of


mind is generally not a rapid process. In their doctoral dissertation work, Dina and
Pierre van Hiele identified several levels of development through which students tend
to pass in learning geometry (van Hiele, 1986). These are commonly referred to as
the van Hiele levels. The van Hiele levels have been used extensively to guide inves-
tigations of students’ geometric thinking. Researchers have invested a great deal of
time in testing the levels against empirical classroom data. Though some have ques-
tioned the descriptive power of the levels and have proposed refinements to them,
the van Hiele levels remain one of the most influential lenses for studying the devel-
opment of students’ geometric thinking.
Battista (2009) provided a summary of current thought on the van Hiele model
and the characteristics of each level. Level 1 is referred to as visual-holistic reason-
ing. At this level, students can name shapes when they are shown to them. However,
the names are based on the general appearance of the shapes rather than on careful
analysis of their properties. A student reasoning at level 1, for example, may see rect-
angles and squares as completely different kinds of shapes simply because they per-
ceive rectangles to be “longer” than squares. At this point, students characterize
shapes by general appearance rather than by carefully comparing components such
as sides and angles. Many level 1 students are also affected by the orientation of a
shape. For instance, if a square is rotated from its conventional position, they may
consider it to be a “diamond” rather than a square (see Figure 10.4).
Battista (2009) called van Hiele level 2 descriptive-analytic reasoning. At this
level, students begin to differentiate among shapes by analyzing their component
parts. Hence, rather than considering an object to be a rectangle because it is long
and skinny, students begin to focus on properties such as angles at intersections of
segments and how segments are oriented relative to one another. Students’ descrip-
tions of these properties may consist of informal language until the formal terms
point, segment, and angle are learned in school. Although level 2 students begin to
describe shapes in terms of their component parts, they do not make connections
312–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.4   The same square in two different orientations.

among the descriptions they give. For example, they may give definitions for square
and rectangle that capture many of the pertinent characteristics of each shape, yet
not understand how a square can be considered a special type of rectangle.
Students do begin to see relationships among definitions for geometric shapes at
van Hiele level 3, relational-inferential reasoning (Battista, 2009). Inferences
about the characteristics of shapes are generally made from observing many exam-
ples. For instance, after constructing and measuring many parallelograms, students
may conclude that their opposite sides are always congruent because the property
holds in all of the examples they consider. Constructing definitions for shapes by
drawing on multiple examples prepares students to reason hierarchically about the
definitions. Since squares and rectangles can both be described as quadrilaterals with
four right angles, for instance, students can begin to see the logic of categorizing a
square as a special type of rectangle. Even those who see this sort of logic, however,
sometimes initially resist imposing a hierarchy on definitions.
Attainment of van Hiele level 4, formal deductive proof (Battista, 2009), is the
goal of most high school geometry courses. At level 4, students understand the
importance of undefined terms, definitions, axioms, and theorems in deductive rea-
soning. They can construct proofs by drawing on given information and using previ-
ous results to build a deductive argument. Common tasks at the high school level that
require level 4 thinking include proving that two triangles in a diagram are similar or
congruent by using theorems such as side-angle-side and angle-side-angle. High
school geometry textbooks are often replete with such exercises.
Battista (2009) called the final van Hiele level rigor. At this level, students are able
to reason about alternative axiomatic systems. They can understand that more than
one logically consistent system of geometry exists. Although the study of non-Euclidean
geometries is usually left to university-level mathematics courses, some mathematics
educators advocate them as enrichments to conventional high school courses. House
(2005), for example, provided ideas for teaching taxicab geometry at the secondary
school level. Taxicab geometry redefines the conventional concept of distance in
plane geometry. Superimposing a grid on the plane helps illustrate the difference in
definitions (see Figure 10.5).
The left side of Figure 10.5 shows how distance is measured in conventional
plane geometry. The distance between (−4, 3) and (5, −1) is measured “as the crow
flies” and can be determined using the distance formula ordinarily taught in algebra.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–313

Figure 10.5   Two different ways to measure the distance between (–4, 3)
and (5, –1).

(−4, 3) (−4, 3)
2 2

−5 5 −5 5

(5, −1)
(5, −1)
−2 −2

The right side of Figure 10.5 shows the measurement of distance in taxicab geometry.
The coordinate grid can be thought of in terms of city streets, and distance is mea-
sured by considering the shortest path a taxi could drive in commuting between two
points on the grid. Counting the number of unit grid lengths traced out by the short-
est path gives the distance. Redefining the concept of distance in this manner can be
used as a springboard for a task such as asking students to determine the conditions
under which Euclidean and taxicab distances are the same and when they are differ-
ent. Students may also be asked to describe what a circle would look like in taxicab
geometry, given that a circle is defined as the set of all points equidistant from a given
point (House, 2005).

Sketch several examples of taxicab geometry circles. Explain how taxicab geometry circles are
similar to and different from Euclidean circles. Also write a distance formula that can be applied to STOP TO
find the distance between any two points in taxicab geometry, and compare and contrast this REFLECT
formula with the one for finding the Euclidean distance between two points in the Cartesian plane.

Some of those who have challenged the descriptive power of the van Hiele model
question whether students progress through the levels in a linear fashion. Gutiérrez,
Jaime, and Fortuny (1991) argued that it is more accurate to speak of students’ think-
ing in terms of degree of acquisition of van Hiele levels rather than as a progression
of discrete jumps from one level to the next. Their data suggested that students may
function at several different levels simultaneously. Despite this potential limitation,
Gutiérrez (1992) found van Hiele levels to be useful for characterizing students’ rea-
soning with three-dimensional objects. In addition, Jaime and Gutiérrez (1995) used
van Hiele levels to describe students’ reasoning about geometric transformations.
Perhaps the most vivid insights yielded by research on students’ acquisition of
van Hiele levels are the characterizations of students’ thinking after completion of
high school geometry courses. Recall that the goal of most high school geometry
courses is to help students attain van Hiele level 4, deductive reasoning. In a study of
2,700 students from five different states, Usiskin (1982) found that most students did
not progress beyond the first two van Hiele levels, even after completing high school
314–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

geometry. Senk (1985) underscored Usiskin’s results by finding that only 30% of stu-
dents from proof-oriented geometry courses attained 75% mastery in proving. Even
those who demonstrated mastery often did not know the purpose of constructing
proofs. Without such understanding, proof becomes a meaningless, mechanistic rit-
ual to perform rather than a means of building knowledge in mathematics. Clearly,
conventional high school geometry courses have fallen well short of the goal of help-
ing all students attain van Hiele level 4.
The preceding discussion of the van Hiele levels suggests aspects of students’
geometric thinking that need teachers’ attention. Students’ reasoning about funda-
mental geometric objects and their definitions is emphasized in the first three van
Hiele levels. Students’ ability to construct and understand
proofs compose the core of the fourth level. Reasoning
Implementing the Common Core about geometric measurement is inherent in understanding
See Clinical Task 2 to administer a both shapes and proof. A particular form of geometric mea-
comprehensive assessment of students’ surement emphasized in school curricula is trigonometry.
ability to construct geometric proofs Some school geometry curricula are also beginning to
(Content Standards G-CO, G-SRT, and emphasize more contemporary topics such as transforma-
G-GPE) and use the assessment data tions, tessellations, chaos, and fractals. Therefore, students’
to drive instructional decisions. patterns of thinking in regard to all of the preceding cur-
ricular areas will be explored next.

Understanding Fundamental Shapes and Their Definitions


Students build their own personal definitions for shapes from examples they see in
school and in everyday life. Through their experiences, students build prototypes
that can become quite strong and influential in their thinking. Prototypes can be
described as mental images that exemplify categories (Lakoff, 1987). Those that cap-
ture many of the relevant aspects of a category can be helpful in learning mathematics,
and those that are more limited can be detrimental (Presmeg, 1992). Unfortunately,
students often build limited prototypes for geometric objects, such as (1) an altitude
always lies inside a triangle, (2) diagonals always lie inside a polygon, (3) right triangles
have their right angles oriented toward the bottom in a diagram, and (4) the base of
an isosceles triangle is positioned at the bottom of a diagram (Hershkowitz, Bruckheimer,
& Vinner, 1987). In regard to numbers 3 and 4, individuals often find it more difficult
to recognize isosceles and right triangles when presented with nonprototypical
images. The influence that prototypes exert on individuals’ thinking can make it diffi-
cult for them to understand and accept formal definitions that conflict with their
entrenched prototypes. When possible, teachers should select unusual examples to
share with students to challenge and uproot limiting,
entrenched prototypes.
Implementing the Common Core
Another issue to deal with in teaching formal definitions
See Clinical Tasks 3 and 5 to explore for geometric objects is that there exist both hierarchical
students’ attention to precision and partitional definitions (de Villiers, 1994). Hierarchical
(Standard for Mathematical Practice 6) definitions, as the term suggests, establish a system in which
when writing geometric definitions. a hierarchy of concepts can be formed. In the case of quad-
rilaterals, many textbooks adopt a hierarchical classification
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–315

scheme in which a square is a special type of rectangle, a rectangle is a special type of


parallelogram, and a parallelogram is a special type of quadrilateral. A primary reason
for adopting hierarchical definition schemes is that they simplify the process of deduc-
tive proof. For instance, under the hierarchical system suggested above, if one can
prove that a property is true for all parallelograms, then the property automatically
applies to all squares as well. Unfortunately, students often resist adopting hierarchical
definition schemes because of entrenched prototypes that lead them to favor parti-
tional ones. Partitional definitions, as the name suggests, partition concepts into sepa-
rate, mutually exclusive bins. Many students have prototypical images of squares and
rectangles that suggest one is not a subset of the other. This leads them to favor dis-
tinct definitions for the two concepts rather than overlapping ones.

IDEA FOR DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION  Discussing Prototypes

Encouraging students to discuss the their personal definitions emerged as students shared drawings of
prototypes for geometric objects is essential to help- their personal prototypes: (1) a quadrilateral with at
ing them develop richer prototypes and accept more least one pair of parallel sides and (2) a quadrilateral
efficient hierarchical definitions. De Villiers, Govender, with exactly one pair of parallel sides. The class dis-
and Patterson (2009) suggested that it is inefficient cussed the consequences of each definition in terms
for teachers to simply present definitions to students of which types of shapes would be considered trap-
and expect them to commit them to memory. ezoids and which would not. Such considerations led
Instead, students should be encouraged to trace out some to favor one definition over the other. In formu-
some of the reasoning that went into the formation lating and debating the two definitions, the class
of the definition. One way to start engaging students was able to explore some of the considerations that
in this reasoning process is to ask them to draw as go into creating geometric definitions, rather than
many examples of a shape as possible. As students just seeing the definitions in their finished form.
do this, teachers can gauge the range of personal Students at many different levels of understanding
prototypes students hold for the shape. Individual were able to participate in the process because gain-
prototypes can then be shared and discussed publicly. ing access to the task required reflection on personal
In one instance (Groth, 2006b), this process helped a prototypes rather than complete knowledge of for-
class negotiate a shared definition for trapezoid. Two mal definitions.

TECHNOLOGY CONNECTION

Dynamic Geometry Software, Drawings, and Constructions

Dynamic geometry software environments (DGEs) can also be used to help students form more powerful
prototypes for concepts and understand formal definitions. DGEs such as Geometer’s Sketchpad, Cabri, and
GeoGebra can be used to prompt students to consider the fundamental characteristics of objects they are
asked to construct. Consider the task of constructing a square in Geometer’s Sketchpad. When asked to do

(Continued)
316–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued) Implementing the Common Core


so, many students produce a drawing of a square rather See Homework Task 2 to get a start on
than a construction (Hollebrands & Smith, 2009). That is, helping students “use appropriate tools
they often use the segment tool to construct four seg- strategically” (Standard for Mathe­
ments that appear to be of equal length and perpendicu- matical Practice 5) when dynamic
lar at the appropriate intersections. A DGE drawing geometry software is available.
ceases to be a square when dragged, but a DGE construc-
tion remains a square when dragged. See Figure 10.6 for
an illustration of how a drawing loses its “squareness” when dragged, and see Figure 10.7 for a construc-
tion of a square that remains a square when dragged. In general, objects that are drawn lose their
properties when dragged, but those that are constructed maintain them. Prompting students
to make constructions rather than drawings can help them carefully examine the properties of the
given shape.

Figure 10.6   A DGE drawing of a square before and after dragging vertex C.

B A
B A

D
D C C

Figure 10.7   A DGE construction of a square before and after dragging vertex C.

B A
B A

D C

D C

The drawing in Figure 10.6 was produced simply by using the segment tool to construct four connected seg-
ments and arranging them into a square-looking object. When producing such a drawing, students may go so far
as to use the angle and side measurement capabilities of the DGE to ensure that they have four right angles and
four congruent sides. However, as soon as one of the sides or vertices is dragged, the drawing loses its squareness.
This problem can be overcome by producing a construction as shown in Figure 10.7. To produce the square figure
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–317

shown, the segment tool was used to produce DC. Then the
Implementing the Common Core
perpendicular line command was used to construct BD. The
intersection point of circle D was then constructed with See Clinical Task 4 to assess a stu-
the appropriate software command, and another perpendicu- dent’s ability to construct a square
lar line was constructed through point B. One last perpendicular with dynamic geometry software
line was constructed through point C, and its intersection with (Content Standard G-CO.12).
BA was constructed to form the fourth vertex of the square.
Since the object of interest was the square, all extraneous por-
tions of the construction were taken away by using the appropriate Hide Objects command. Dragging sides and
vertices in the construction produces new squares rather than destroying its squareness.
K. Jones (2000) found that asking students to produce constructions, rather than drawings, can help improve
their understanding of formal definitions and relationships among geometric objects. He began instruction by
asking students to produce objects in a DGE that could not be “messed up” by dragging. This request prompted
students to move beyond simply producing drawings of the objects. In one case, students were to construct a
rhombus and explain why it was a rhombus. In another case, they were asked to produce a rectangle that could
be dragged to make a square, and then to explain why all squares can be considered rectangles. Later on, they
were asked to construct a kite that could be dragged to produce a rhombus and explain why rhombi can be
considered kites. By the point in the instructional sequence when the kite task was given, students had become
increasingly formal in their use of mathematical statements. Instead of using informal language or the language
of the software in their explanations, they had transitioned to using formal geometric language. This transition
was demonstrated by the increasing sophistication of their statements about squares and rectangles. Initially, a
square was considered to be a type of rectangle simply
because it “looked like one.” Using the DGE led students to
Implementing the Common Core
refine their justification by stating that a rectangle can be
“dragged into a square.” Finally, at the end of the unit, stu- See Homework Task 3 to try your hand
dents discussed the fact that both are “quadrilaterals with at making geometric constructions
four right angles.” Producing constructions of objects within with dynamic geometry software
the DGE led to this gradual adoption of normative geometric (Content Standard G-CO.12).
language and modes of thinking.

Follow-up questions:
1. What other types of quadrilaterals could be constructed in a DGE? Explain how you would construct at
least one other quadrilateral.
2. Why is it important for teachers to know the distinction between “drawings” and “constructions” in DGEs?

TECHNOLOGY CONNECTION

Analyzing Premade Dynamic Constructions

Another DGE-based strategy that can facilitate understanding of definitions of shapes and relationships
among them is having students work with premade constructions rather than producing their own. The
Shape Makers environment (Battista, 2003) supports such an approach. Shape Makers comes packaged
(Continued)
318–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)

with premade constructions for shapes such as squares, trapezoids, parallelograms, and rectangles. Yu,
Barrett, and Presmeg (2009) described two types of tasks they asked students to do when using Shape
Makers. In one type of task, students experimented with different shape makers to produce given pictures
made of shapes (e.g., a person made of squares, rectangles, circles, and other shapes). Carrying out these
tasks prompted students to examine the range of capabilities for each shape maker. In another type of task,
students experimented with shape makers to see which ones would produce different shapes (a square, a
rhombus, a trapezoid, etc.). As they worked through the tasks, students were encouraged to write down their
thoughts and conjectures and share them with the instructor and with each other. Exploring the capabilities
of each shape maker and making their thinking processes explicit helped students refine personal prototypes
for the geometric shapes under consideration.

Follow-up questions:
1. In what types of situations would you want your students to work with premade constructions? In which
situations would you want them to construct their own?
2. What kinds of conjectures about relationships between shapes would you expect students to make when
interacting with Shape Makers? Which important geometry concepts could they learn in the process?

Understanding and Constructing Geometric Proofs


Developing normative, formal definitions for shapes lays a foundation for understand-
ing geometric proofs. Such a developmental progression is suggested by the van
Hiele levels, since level 4 thinking involves the capability to deal with proof. Unfortu-
nately, as noted earlier, far too few students are successful in understanding proof
upon completing their high school geometry courses (Senk, 1985; Usiskin, 1982).
The following discussion describes some of the reasons for the widespread failure to
understand proof and some steps that can be taken to remedy the situation.

The Intellectual Need for Deductive Proof

A major cause of the difficulty with proof in schools appears to be that students often
feel no intellectual need to reason deductively (Hershkowitz et al., 2002). Deductive
reasoning involves incorporating accepted statements such as theorems, postulates,
and definitions into a logical argument. For example, if one wishes to prove that all
triangles contain 180 degrees, a deductive argument that involves theorems about
alternate interior angles could be used as a key aspect. Simply measuring the angles
in several different triangles would not be sufficient, since it is not possible to measure
every triangle that could possibly be constructed. However, students are often satis-
fied of the truth of a conjecture after seeing only a few specific cases where it holds
up. Most of the geometry students Koedinger (1998) interviewed were satisfied that
the diagonals of kites are perpendicular after seeing a few specific examples. Students
with this tendency have been called naive empiricists (Balacheff, 1988) because
they rely entirely on the empirical evidence produced by a finite number of cases.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–319

Naive empiricism, though a prevalent cause of difficult Implementing the Common Core
with proof, is not the only cause. Some students do not
even go so far as to gather empirical evidence to support a See Clinical Task 6 to probe a student’s
conjecture. Instead, they exhibit external proof schemes, intellectual need to prove a theorem
believing that truth is established by appealing to outside about the sum of the measures of the
authority (Harel & Sowder, 1998). In addition, even those interior angles of a triangle (Content
who know the mechanics of deductive proof may not see an Standard G-CO.10).
intellectual need for it. Some of the students interviewed by
Koedinger (1998) were actually able to write a deductive
proof showing that diagonals of a kite are perpendicular. However, these students
usually only did so when the interviewer used the prompt “Do a proof like you do in
school.” Furthermore, some students who can follow a deductive proof may not be
convinced that it covers all cases. Chazan (1993) found that some students wanted
additional empirical examples to support a deductive proof after it had been written.
These results support the idea that lack of intellectual need, perhaps even more than
lack of knowledge of the mechanics of proof, is a key roadblock.

TECHNOLOGY CONNECTION

Using DGEs for Proof Activities

DGEs present both challenges and opportunities when it comes to helping students see the need for deduc-
tive proof. DGEs allow users to produce many examples very quickly. For instance, a student may quickly
become convinced that the interior angles of all triangles sum to 180 degrees while dragging vertices and
observing that the sum remains constant (Figure 10.8).

Figure 10.8   Empirical examples of triangle measures produced in a DGE.

m∠BAC = 42.88° B m∠BAC = 13.36° B


m∠BCA = 85.48° A m∠BCA = 20.33° A
m∠ABC = 51.64° m∠ABC = 146.31°
m∠BAC + m∠BCA m∠BAC + m∠BCA C
+ m∠ABC = 180.00° + m∠ABC = 180.00°
C

m∠BAC = 52.53° A
m∠BAC = 5.97° A

m∠BCA = 90.50° m∠BCA = 150.28°


m∠ABC = 36.97° m∠ABC = 23.75°
m∠BAC + m∠BCA B
m∠BAC + m∠BCA
+ m∠ABC = 180.00° + m∠ABC = 180.00° B

(Continued)
320–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)
Since empirical examples are so easy to come by in a DGE, the potential exists for students to see even
less need for deductive proof (Mariotti, 2001). However, it is also true that mathematicians often examine
many empirical examples in order to become convinced that a proposition is worth attempting to prove (de
Villiers, 1998). Although students, particularly naive empiricists, may become too confident in conclusions
gained from analyzing empirical examples, analyzing examples intelligently is part of normative geometric
thinking. Hence, it does not seem reasonable to prohibit students from using DGEs for proof-oriented
activities. Instead of asking if students should be allowed to use DGEs, a more productive question is how
teachers can help students use them appropriately.
One way to help students engage in productive work in a DGE is to carefully choose the questions they
address with the technology. De Villiers (1998) recommended having students make conjectures about pat-
terns they see when exploring within a DGE, and then asking them to explain why the conjectures are true.
In one activity, for example, students were asked to construct a triangle and the midpoints on each of its
sides. They were then to connect the midpoints to their opposite vertices to form the medians of the triangle
(Figure 10.9) and state a conjecture about the medians. Students tested their conjectures by dragging the
triangle and observing what happened to the medians as the triangle become obtuse, scalene, and right.
After drawing tentative conclusions about the situation, students shared with one another. They were then
asked to explain why the conjecture was true by explaining it “in terms of other well-known geometric
results” (p. 392). After constructing deductive explanations, students again shared them with one another
to identify areas of agreement and disagreement as well as the explanations that seemed most satisfactory.
Such an approach stands in contrast to conventional proof instruction, where students are generally given
statements and then asked to prove them. In de Villier’s activities, students had roles in formulating the
conjectures to be proven, which helped create an intellectual need to explain why the conjectures were true.
Hadas, Hershkowitz, and Schwarz (2000) used a
different approach to establishing an intellectual Figure 10.9   Medians of a triangle.
need for deductive proof. They set up a situation
where conjectures students formed while examining
empirical examples proved to be incorrect. In an B
introductory activity, students were asked to deter-
mine the sum of the interior angles in a polygon,
and to notice that the sum changed with the num-
ber of sides. From their observations, they were to E
make a conjecture about the sum of the exterior D
angles. Most students believed that the sum of the
exterior angles would change with the number of C
sides, just as the sum of the interior angles had F
changed. They were surprised, however, when they A
examined more examples and found that the sum of
the exterior angles was constant, regardless of the
number of sides on the polygons they constructed in
a DGE. This sparked students’ curiosity, and many felt a need to explain why the exterior angle sum
remained constant. The students did not believe that the DGE constructions provided an explanation of
why this was the case, so they set about reasoning deductively to form satisfactory explanations. In this
situation, the conflict between expected and obtained results was a powerful catalyst in moving stu-
dents toward formal geometric proof.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–321

Hadas and Hershkowitz (1998) also used the element of Implementing the Common Core
surprise to help prompt students toward forming deductive
proofs. They asked students to make a conjecture about a See Homework Task 4 to prove a theo-
diagram where one of the angles of a triangle was trisected rem about the medians of triangles
with two segments (Figure 10.10). Most students believed (Content Standard G-CO.10).
that the side opposite the trisected angle would be split
into three congruent parts. When students tried to support
this conjecture by measuring empirical examples, they were not able to produce any examples to support the
conjecture. Students drew on geometric properties they had learned in the past to begin to explain why the
conjecture actually was not true. As in the Hadas, Hershkowitz, and Schwarz (2000) study, the elements of
uncertainty and contradiction of intuitive beliefs provoked an intellectual need for deduction.
Since naive empiricism is deeply ingrained in the
thinking of many students as they study geometry, Figure 10.10   A triangle with one angle
teachers should not expect rapid mastery of deduc- trisected by two segments.
tive proof. Moving from empirical observations to
deductive reasoning is a process that takes time.
DGE use is likely to be most effective in moving B
students toward proof when adequate instructional
time is invested (Marrades & Gutiérrez, 2000).
Though it may seem inefficient at first to allow
extensive amounts of time for examining examples,
making conjectures, and explaining why the conjec-
tures are true, such a sequence of activities is opti-
mal for helping students begin to engage in A C D E
normative geometric thinking patterns.

Follow-up questions:

1. Why is the sum of the exterior angles for any polygon 360°? Provide a deductive explanation.
2. Provide your own example of a counterintuitive geometric property that students could investigate in a
DGE. How would students’ DGE findings for your example conflict with their intuition?

Establishing a Classroom Culture of Proof

A DGE is just one possible element of a classroom environment that promotes a cul-
ture of proving. Martin, McCrone, Bower, and Dindyal (2005) studied a geometry
classroom where students successfully made conjectures, provided justifications, and
built chains of reasoning. To encourage these behaviors, the teacher posed open-
ended tasks, placed responsibility for reasoning on the students, and analyzed their
reasoning to determine when further coaching was necessary. In one classroom epi-
sode, the teacher began by giving students the open-ended task of writing down
everything they knew about a pair of congruent pentagons. The task led one student
to conjecture that the distances between nonadjacent corresponding vertices in each
pentagon were equal. The teacher asked students to investigate the conjecture
322–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

through paper folding, affirmed the truth of the statement, and then asked students
to explain why it was true. In response, students attempted to construct deductive
explanations. Some of the attempts at deductive explanation were initially unsuccess-
ful. The teacher introduced counterexamples highlighting the portions of the stu-
dents’ arguments that needed to be rethought. Students persisted in their attempts
to construct deductive explanations because the teacher’s feedback and interaction
indicated that their attempts were valued, even if they were not initially correct.
Many teachers believe that providing a specific proof writing format is another way
to support students’ attempts to construct proofs. The two-column proof format, in
which statements are written in one column and corresponding reasons in the other,
is deeply ingrained in the culture of teaching geometric proof in the United States
(Herbst, 2002). A typical two-column proof from high school geometry is shown in the
top portion of Figure 10.11. In recent decades, the two-column format has been criti-
cized. Schoenfeld (1988) remarked that constructing geometric proofs can become a
ritualistic and mechanistic enterprise when the form of a proof is emphasized more
than its substance. Moreover, mathematicians do not hold themselves to using the
two-column format when constructing proofs. In an attempt to shift students’ focus
from the two-column format to the actual substance of proofs, Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Math-
ematics [NCTM], 1989) identified two-column proof as a
Implementing the Common Core topic that should receive less attention. Proof itself was still
See Clinical Task 7 to inquire about a to be an important part of the curriculum, but NCTM recom-
teacher’s strategies for using different mended de-emphasizing the two-column format in an attempt
formats to help students construct proofs to shift attention toward the quality of students’ deductive
(Content Standards G-CO, G-SRT, and reasoning and away from their ability to adhere to a specific
G-GPE). format. Two other possible formats for writing proofs, flow-
charts (McMurray, 1978) and paragraphs (Brandell, 1994), are
shown in Figure 10.11.
Any given format for writing a proof has potential weaknesses and strengths. A
potential weakness of any form is that students may begin to focus more on form than
on substance, as noted earlier. The primary strength of paragraph proofs is that they
closely resemble the types of proofs constructed by mathematicians. Therefore, stu-
dents who can read and construct paragraph proofs may be in better position to suc-
ceed in college mathematics. Nonetheless, other formats may be useful for scaffolding
students’ thinking so that they can ultimately master paragraph proof. Even the two-
column format, which has been somewhat demonized in the recent past, can serve a
useful scaffolding role when used appropriately. Weiss, Herbst, and Chen (2009) noted
that the two-column format can be a useful tool for outlining the general structure of
a proof. In one classroom they observed, a student sketched a general structure for a
proof using two columns, initially skipping some of the reasons in the second column
but returning to fill them out later. When used in this way, the two-column format can
help students organize their thinking. On the other hand, when teachers insist that
two-column proofs be filled out in a linear fashion, with each step justified before
another step may be written, students’ thinking is constrained. In general, any proof
format is valuable when used to help facilitate thinking rather than impede it.
Under any form of proof, care must be taken to ensure that students interpret the
accompanying diagrams correctly. Battista (2007) described a variety of ways that stu-
dents misinterpret the intended meanings of geometric diagrams. One common mis-
interpretation is to believe that a deductive proof only covers the specific diagram
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–323

Figure 10.11   The same proof written in three different formats.


G Suppose we know that EG bisects ∠DGF and that ∠FEG ≅ ∠DEG. Prove
that triangles DGE and FGE are congruent.
D F

Two-column proof:
Statements Reasons

1. EG bisects ∠DGF 1. Given
2. ∠DGE ≅ ∠FGE 2. The two angles formed by an angle bisector are congruent.
— —
3. GE ≅ EG 3. Reflexive property
4. ∠FEG ≅ ∠DEG 4. Given
5. Triangles DGE and FGE are congruent. 5. Angle-side-angle postulate

Flowchart proof:

EG bisects ∠DGE GE
∠FEG ≅ ∠DEG
∠DGF ≅ ∠FGF ≅ EG

Included
Angle side Angle

Triangles DGE and FGE are congruent by ASA.

Paragraph proof:
The two triangles can be shown congruent by using the angle-side-angle congruence postulate. First, note that

∠DGE ≅ ∠FGE— — EG bisects ∠DGF, and the bisector of an angle splits it into two congruent angles. Next,
because
we know that GE ≅ EG by the reflexive property. Finally, it was given that ∠FEG ≅ ∠DEG. This shows that two
corresponding angles in each triangle and their included corresponding sides are congruent. Hence, triangles DGE
and FGE are congruent by the angle-side-angle (ASA) congruence postulate. Q.E.D.

accompanying the proof. In reference to Figure 10.11, for example, some students may
believe that if EG were lengthened, a new proof would be required, even though the
essential structure of the situation would remain unchanged. Another common misin-
terpretation is to believe that features of a diagram can disprove a theorem established
deductively. Suppose, for example, a teacher drew a diagram of a circle and a tangent
line, and then drew a radius out to the tangent line that appeared to intersect it at an
acute angle. Such a diagram will lead some students to believe that the intersection of
a radius and a tangent line does not always form a right angle. To help students avoid
misinterpretations like these, it is important to explicitly discuss the meanings of geo-
metric diagrams. Students need to understand that diagrams simply serve as (some-
times imperfect) visual props for working toward a deductive proof.
324–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Geometric Measurement
Along with the study of shapes and proofs, measurement undergirds most geometry
courses taught in middle and high schools. As in other areas of the mathematics cur-
riculum, there are many student thinking patterns that should be taken into account
in planning instruction. Students’ thinking about measurement of length, area, vol-
ume, and angles is discussed below.

Measuring Length

An item from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly


called the “broken ruler problem,” provides a good starting point for discussing stu-
dents’ understanding of length measurement. The version of the problem given to
students in 2003 is shown in Figure 10.12.

Figure 10.12   Broken ruler problem from 2003 National Assessment of


Educational Progress.

7 8 9 10 11 12

inches
What is the length of the toothpick in the figure above?

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

Approximately 42% of eighth graders (Blume, Galindo, & Walcott, 2007) and 20%
of high school seniors (Struchens, Martin, & Kenney, 2003) answer the broken ruler
problem incorrectly. There are several ways students can go wrong. Some have dif-
ficulty reading fractional lengths. Even those who can do so may say that the tooth-
pick is 10½ inches long because they are accustomed to reading the location of the
endpoint on the right side of the ruler to determine a
measurement. Those who do attempt to determine the
Implementing the Common Core distance between the two endpoints of the toothpick may
See Clinical Task 8 to investigate stu- do so incorrectly by counting each mark above a whole
dents’ attention to precision (Standard number as one unit of length. That is, since the whole num-
for Mathematical Practice 6) when bers 8, 9, and 10 fall within the length of the toothpick,
measuring length with a broken ruler. students may incorrectly conclude that the toothpick is 3½
inches long.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–325

Miscounting the units in the length of an object like the toothpick in the broken
ruler problem suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of length measurement.
Students need to understand that the distance between two consecutive whole num-
bers, rather than a mark above a number, represents a unit of length. One strategy for
helping students understand this important characteristic of measurement involves
setting aside formal units of measure and rulers. Van de Walle (2001) recommended
that students measure length by iterating an informal unit along an object. For exam-
ple, students might use their hand spans to measure the length of a table. Doing so
reinforces the idea that one essentially lays the same unit end to end over and over
again to measure length. When repeatedly iterating the informal unit becomes
tedious, students can abbreviate the process by making their own measuring sticks by
taping together several copies of the unit. This can help them understand how con-
ventional rulers abbreviate the iteration process. Finally, when students obtain differ-
ent measurements for the same table because their hands are different lengths, the
concept of formal units can be introduced and appreciated for its ability to facilitate
discussions about the length of an object.
Understanding how the iteration of units composes the foundation of measure-
ment can also be useful when students attempt to estimate. Another problem that
causes difficulty on the NAEP involves estimating the length of one object with
another. On the 2003 NAEP, students were asked to estimate the length of the
882-foot-long cruise ship Titanic. They were to choose the most accurate estimate
from among several options: 2 moving van lengths, 50 car lengths, 100 skateboard
lengths, 500 school bus lengths, or 1,000 bicycle lengths. Only 39% of eighth grad-
ers answered correctly (Blume et al., 2007). The low rate of success on the item
suggests a lack of opportunity to think about measuring an object through the
iteration of units. Although such opportunities would ideally occur in the lower
grades, middle and high school teachers may need to address gaps in students’
understanding by providing opportunities for measuring via iteration of units in the
later grades.
Another way to build students’ understanding of length measurement involves
using a geoboard. A geoboard is essentially a pegboard on which rubber bands can be
strung to create geometric objects. Dot paper can be used in
place of a physical geoboard. Some online applets also repli-
cate physical geoboards (Figure 10.13). Ellis and Pagni
Implementing the Common Core
(2008) described an instructional sequence for using the See Homework Task 5 to try your
geoboard to help students understand lengths not repre- hand at a geoboard task that requires
sented by whole numbers. They asked students to deter- students to “understand and apply
mine the lengths of the sides of simple objects, such as the Pythagorean Theorem” (Content
squares and rectangles, formed on the geoboard. Students Standard 8.G).
could do so by counting the number of units (rather than
the number of pegs) along each side. They then asked stu-
dents to determine the lengths of diagonals on the geoboard. This prompted students
to use the Pythagorean theorem. If a length of 1 is assigned to the distance between
neighboring pegs on the geoboard, then the shortest diagonal is 12 + 12 = 2. Once
that length has been established, students can take on more complicated problems,
such as determining how many segments of 10 can be found on the geoboard.
326–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.13   A geoboard from the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives


(http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vLibrary.html).

Measuring Area

Students’ difficulties in measuring length feed difficulties in measuring area. NAEP


data indicate that only about 24% of eighth graders can determine the surface area
of a given rectangular prism (Blume et al., 2007). In addition, teachers are sometimes
uncertain about relationships between perimeter and area of geometric objects. Ma
(1999) asked teachers how they would respond to a stu-
dent who claimed that the area of a closed figure always
Implementing the Common Core increases as its perimeter increases. Many of the teachers
See Clinical Task 9 to explore how well from the United States responded that they would ask the
students “construct viable arguments” student to produce several examples to verify the claim.
(Standard for Mathematical Practice 3) Few responded that they would guide students toward
when discussing the relationship counterexamples that would actually refute the claim, like
between area and perimeter of a shape. the one shown in Figure 10.14.
One of the prominent portions of the curriculum
where measurement of length and area interact is the
Pythagorean theorem. Although the Pythagorean theorem
is often used simply to determine the length of a side of a right triangle when only
the other two side lengths are provided, it also expresses an interesting relationship
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–327

Figure 10.14   Decreasing area while increasing perimeter.

mAB + mBC + mDC + mAD = 9.79 cm

mAB ⋅ mBC = 5.96 cm2

mAB = 2.62 cm

A B

mAD = 2.28 cm mBC = 2.28 cm

D C

mDC = 2.62 cm

mAB + mBC + mDC + mAD = 15.03 cm

mAB ⋅ mBC = 4.53 cm2


mAB = 6.85 cm
A B

mAD = 0.66 cm mBC = 0.66 cm

D mDC = 6.85 cm C

among areas of squares. Essentially, it states that the sum Implementing the Common Core
of the areas of the squares constructed on the legs of a
right triangle will equal the area of the square constructed See Homework Task 6 for an opportunity
on the hypotenuse (Figure 10.15). There are many ways to to “explain a proof of the Pythagorean
help students understand the Pythagorean theorem in Theorem” (Content Standard 8.G.6).
terms of area. Yun and Flores (2008), for example, sug-
gested using jelly beans as informal units of area measure-
ment. They constructed several cardboard containers in the shape of the diagram
shown in Figure 10.15. They then asked students to fill each square portion with a
layer of jelly beans and describe the relationships among the areas of the squares.
Yun and Flores recommended extending the activity by having students examine
containers with circles and other shapes constructed on the sides of the right tri-
angle to conjecture whether or not the relationship between the areas still holds.
As in length measurement, work with informal units can be followed by work with
formal units represented by unit squares.
328–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.15   Expressing the Pythagorean theorem in terms of area.

°
If ABC is a right triangle with m ∠CBA=90 , then the sum of the areas of squares
FCBG and BAIH is equal to the area of square DEAC.
D

F C

G B A

H I

IDEA FOR DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION  Measuring Nonrectangular Areas

Encouraging students to measure nonrectangular areas


Implementing the Common Core
with unit squares sets the stage for diverse, rich thinking
strategies to emerge. Hodgson, Simonsen, Lubek, and See Homework Task 7 to explore how a
Anderson (2003) described an activity that required geoboard can be used for problems
students to measure the area of the state of Montana. that require students to solve mathe-
When presented with the task, students suggested matical problems involving areas of
superimposing a grid of unit squares on a map. They unusual shapes (Content Standards
then proposed methods to obtain more accurate meas- 6.G and 7.G).
urements, such as making the squares progressively
smaller to minimize empty spaces within the grid. Utley trapezoid and then cut out two triangles, or cut the
and Wolfe (2004) suggested using the unit squares on shape itself into a rectangle and two triangles. Students
geoboards as a means of measuring the areas of differ- may also devise alternative strategies for determining
ent shapes. Since geoboards have unit squares built its area. It is important to note that knowing the for-
into their structure, they can be used to visualize area mula for the area of a trapezoid is not necessary to
for a variety of shapes, such as the trapezoid shown in perform the task. Determining the area is actually a
Figure 10.16. One might form a rectangle around the good precursor to deriving a formula, as students can
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–329

be prompted to find shortcuts for


Figure 10.16   A geoboard representation of a trapezoid.
calculating area after using more
time-consuming visual methods
repeatedly. The formula can then be
understood and appreciated as an
abbreviation of the visual methods
rather than simply as a teacher-
invented recipe for determining area.
Students who discover a formula for
the area of a trapezoid in advance of
others can be encouraged to devise
additional area formulas for more
complex geometric shapes.

Describe at least four different ways to determine the area of the trapezoid shown in Figure 10.16. STOP TO
Explain your reasoning completely. REFLECT

Measuring Volume

As with area measurement, it is important for students to


Implementing the Common Core
develop conceptual knowledge of volume before dealing
with procedural formulas. Students who are very good at See Clinical Task 10 to investigate a
memorizing and using formulas to determine volume student’s ability to decompose a trap-
often have little understanding of what the formulas ezoid into simpler shapes (Content
mean. NAEP results show that approximately 45% of 12th- Standard 6.G.1) to determine its area.
grade students do not know that 48 cubic inches repre-
sents a measure of volume (Battista, 2007). Without
knowledge of the fundamental unit that composes volume, students have little
chance to develop conceptual understanding of volume measurement.
Battista (1999) described an instructional sequence for helping students develop
conceptual understanding of volume. Instruction began by asking students to deter-
mine the number of cubes it would take to fill different boxes represented by two-
dimensional drawings (see, for example, the diagrams in Figure 10.17). Students
made conjectures, compared them with one another, and then tested the conjec-
tures using actual cubes and boxes. Discrepancies between predicted and actual
results prompted students to go back and revise their thinking. In some cases, stu-
dents found their predictions to be incorrect because they double-counted cubes or
omitted cubes in the middle of a box in forming their predictions. Some students
began the task of counting the number of cubes in each box by using skip counting,
but gradually moved to multiplication as a more efficient strategy. After working with
330–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Implementing the Common Core several boxes (i.e., rectangular prisms), students moved on
to explore other solids, such as pyramids. At the end of the
See Clinical Task 11 to assess a stu- instructional sequence, students were able to successfully
dent’s ability to determine the volume enumerate cubes in 3D arrays. Battista’s instructional
of prisms using nets made of rectan- sequence stands in stark contrast to typical units that begin
gles (Content Standards 6.G.4, 7.G, by introducing students to formulas for volume and then
8.G, and G-GMD). spend most of the allotted time having students repeatedly
practice computation with those formulas.

Measuring Angles

Just as volume measurement can be difficult for students to understand conceptually,


angle measurement often presents a significant cognitive hurdle. Some students
believe that the lengths of the rays that make up an angle influence its measure (i.e.,
as the rays become longer, the angle measure increases even though the rays remain
in the same orientation to one another; Struchens et al., 2003). Students also have a
difficult time conceiving of angle measurement as an amount of turn (Mitchelmore &
White, 2000). This particular student difficulty can be partially explained by the lan-
guage teachers use to describe angles. Browning and Garza-Kling (2009) found that
prospective teachers tend to describe angles as “corners” or “something you measure
in degrees.” Such descriptions of angles fail to emphasize their usefulness for measur-
ing the amount of turn from one position to the next.
Given students’ difficulty in conceiving of angle measurement as an amount of
turn, geometry instruction should explicitly address this characteristic. Browning and
Garza-Kling (2009) fostered understanding in this area by asking students to imagine
that the degree, a standard unit of angle measurement, had not yet been invented.
Students were to devise their own strategies for measuring angles. They settled on
forming wedges and iterating them until they had completely measured out an angle.
Since each group of students began with a different-size wedge, the importance of

Figure 10.17   A net and a representation of its three-dimensional structure


when folded.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–331

having a standard wedge to measure all angles became Implementing the Common Core
apparent so that each group would assign the same mea-
sure to a given angle. This led to understanding and appre- See Homework Task 8 for an opportu-
ciation of a degree as a standard “wedge size” used for angle nity to design a manipulative to help
measurement. Later on, Browning and Garza-Kling asked students understand the concept
students to work with a graphing calculator applet showing of angle measurement (Content
angles being swept out by turning segments. Such experi- Standard 8.G).
ences highlighted important concepts that compose the
foundation of angle measurement.

Trigonometry
Many of the geometric concepts discussed so far, particularly the idea of angle,
form the core of secondary school trigonometry. Despite the importance of the
subject, research on the teaching and learning of trigonometry is in its infancy.
It will be important for teachers to track developments in this field of research in
the coming years as it continues to develop. Insights from existing research are
discussed next.
In recent years, researchers have highlighted potential conceptual difficulties
with common approaches to teaching trigonometry. P. W. Thompson (2008)
claimed that the trigonometry of right angles and the trigonometry of periodic
functions are often treated in isolation. Weber (2008) agreed, noting that the cal-
culation of ratios in static triangles is often overemphasized in comparison to time
spent building functional understanding. Thompson went on to note that trigo-
nometry is often taught procedurally, with little emphasis on the conceptual
underpinnings of angle measurement. Because of this, students may be able to
transition between radians and degrees without understanding that the two are
essentially just different units for measuring angles. In trigonometry, as in many
other areas of the mathematics curriculum, fundamental problems with teaching
and learning appear to be often rooted in an imbalance between emphases on
procedural and conceptual knowledge.
Weber (2008) described a teaching sequence that departs from conventional
approaches to trigonometry. He started instruction by asking students to work with a
circle with a radius of 1 and centered on the point (0, 0) (i.e., a unit circle) on graph
paper. On the unit circle, students drew angles and approximated the values of differ-
ent trigonometric functions by measuring the coordinates of the intersection of the
terminal segment and the unit circle. In Figure 10.18, for instance, students could
estimate sine by estimating the y-coordinate of the intersection and cosine by estimat-
ing the x-coordinate. After associating sine with y-coordinates and cosine with x-coor-
dinates, Weber had students estimate sine and cosine for several different examples.
Along the way, students were asked to determine the exact values for sine and cosine

of 0 , 90 ,180 , 270 and 360 without measuring. With this background, students
were prepared to approach conceptual trigonometric tasks, such as determining
whether or not it is possible to have a situation where sin( x ) = 2 , deciding on the sign

of cos( 300 ), and determining if sin( 23 ) is larger or smaller than sin( 37 ). Weber
(2005) reported that this general approach helped students develop a deep under-
standing of trigonometric functions.
332–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.18   Unit circle diagram.

0
−2 −1 0 1 2

−1

−2

Cavey and Berenson (2005) described how teachers can improve their under-
standing of right triangle trigonometry by engaging in a modified version of Japanese
lesson study. They traced the learning of one preservice teacher, Molly, during the
process of collaborative planning and modification of lessons. Initially, when asked
to teach a unit on right triangle trigonometry, all Molly could recall about the topic
was the mnemonic “SOHCAHTOA.” The acronym provided a means for calculating
sine, cosine, and tangent, but little else (i.e., the acronym
states that sine is “opposite [O] over hypotenuse [H],”
Implementing the Common Core cosine is “adjacent [A] over hypotenuse [H],” and tangent
See Clinical Task 12 to assess students’ is “opposite [O] over adjacent [A]”). Through collaborative
ability to “solve problems involving planning, Molly was able to take her teaching of trigonom-
right triangles” (Content Standard etry beyond this simple mnemonic. One idea she gained,
G-SRT) and “extend the domain of for example, was using a clinometer (Figure 10.19), a tool
trigonometric functions using the unit consisting of a protractor, straw, washer, and string that can
circle” (Content Standard F-TF). be used to measure angles in real-world situations involv-
ing right triangle trigonometry. In revising and extending
her lessons, she also enriched her understanding of the
mathematical concepts of ratio and similarity. Her improved
Implementing the Common Core
content knowledge helped enhance the lessons she taught.
See Clinical Task 13 to assess students’ Thinking about the mathematics within the context of her
ability to use trigonometric ratios to own practice proved to be a crucial element in Molly’s
solve applied problems (Content development. Sharing her plans with others was a key
Standard G-SRT.8) with a clinometer. mechanism in helping her identify and address gaps in her
mathematical and pedagogical knowledge.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–333

Figure 10.19   Components of a clinometer.

Straw (used to sight


the tops of tall Protractor
objects)

Washer (attached so the


string marks out the String (attached to center
precise angle being of the bottom segment
measured) of protractor)

Describe how students could use a clinometer to measure the heights of very tall objects, such as
the school building or trees surrounding it. Write at least three exercises you would ask students to STOP TO
do outside using clinometers. Include a diagram showing proper use of the clinometer to measure REFLECT
a tall object.

Contemporary Topics in Geometry


As geometry continues to develop as a discipline, the school curriculum should
respond accordingly. There has, of course, been much advancement in the discipline
of geometry since the time of Euclid, yet the study of plane geometry and traditional
measurement continue to dominate the curriculum. Contemporary topics that can be
included in secondary curricula are transformation geometry, tessellations, fractals,
and chaos (National Governor’s Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010; NCTM, 2000). As these ideas are relatively new to school cur-
ricula, we are just beginning to investigate optimal ways of teaching and learning
them. Nonetheless, existing mathematics education research does provide some use-
ful insights.

Transformation Geometry
Implementing the Common Core
Isometries can be defined as transformations in the plane See Homework Task 9 to explore a vari-
that preserve the distance between points (Jaime & ety of transformation geometry prob-
Gutiérrez, 1995). Isometries typically included in the high lems (Content Standards 8.G, G-CO,
school curriculum include translations, rotations, and reflec- and G-SRT) that can be approached
tions. Isometries can be produced by a variety of methods, using a Mira manipulative.
including paper folding, using dynamic geometry software,
334–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

using online applets such as those available on the National Library of Virtual
Manipulatives, and employing a Mira tool. Figure 10.20 shows isometries involving a
hexagon.

Figure 10.20   Isometries involving a hexagon.

j
P

Horizontal translation 120° Rotation about Reflection across


point P segment j

Jaime and Gutiérrez (1995) suggested using the van Hiele levels as a structure for
determining goals for the study of plane isometries. They identified van Hiele level 3
as a suitable target for secondary school activities involving isometries, since most
courses at this level aim to help students construct chains of deductive reasoning.
Aiming for van Hiele level 3 means going beyond having students produce transfor-
mations. Jaime and Gutiérrez recommended tasks such as asking students to explain
why the product of rotations is equivalent to a translation when the sum of the rota-
tion angles is a multiple of 360. Another recommended task was to explain why the
product of two rotations is either a rotation or translation. Writing explanations for
why transformations behave as they do can help students build the deductive reason-
ing skills characteristic of the higher van Hiele levels.

Tessellations

Students who have studied some transformation geometry can appreciate tessella-
tions, which are tilings of a plane that do not contain any gaps or overlaps. Three
regular polygons will tile the plane in this manner: triangles, squares, and hexagons.
These three tile the plane because the measures of their interior angles are divisors
of 360. Figure 10.21 shows tilings done using an applet on the National Library of
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–335

Virtual Manipulatives website. Using applets, software programs, or just paper and
scissors, students can make and test conjectures about the kinds of shapes that will
tile the plane.

Figure 10.21   Tessellations using regular polygons.

Perhaps the best-known tessellations occur in the artwork of M. C. Escher. Exam-


ples of how Escher incorporated tessellations in his paintings can be seen on www
.mcescher.com.
Escher went beyond merely tiling the plane with shapes. He performed transfor-
mations on the shapes to form unique figures and then used them to tile the plane.
Shockey and Snyder (2007) described an approach to helping students produce
Escher-like tessellations. They asked students to take a square, cut a design along one
edge of it (corner to corner), and then translate the design to the opposite side of the
square (Figure 10.22). When the design is used to tile the plane, an Escher-like picture
is formed. One could perform the same procedure with the other pair of opposite
sides of the square to produce a different portrait. Students can also experiment to
find other shapes and transformations that tile the plane.

Fractals and Chaos

Concepts from fractal geometry have begun to make their way into middle and high
school curricula. Fractals can be described in the following terms:

Roughly speaking, fractals are complex geometric shapes with fine structure
at arbitrarily small scales. Usually they have some degree of self-similarity. In
other words, if we magnify a tiny part of a fractal, we will see features remi-
niscent of the whole. Sometimes the similarity is exact; more often it is only
approximate or statistical. (Strogatz, 1994, p. 398)

Sierpinski’s triangle (Figure 10.23) is one well-known fractal. Notice the self-
similarity that exists within it. Strogatz noted that other fractals resemble naturally
occurring objects such as clouds, coastlines, and blood vessel networks. Their ability
to capture characteristics of natural objects, along with the fact that many discoveries
in fractal geometry have been made in the very recent past (Devaney, 1998), make
fractals a potentially exciting addition to school curricula.
336–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Figure 10.22   Creating a simple Escher-like picture.

1. Cut a curve, 2. Translate the


corner to corner, resulting object to
from a shape the opposite side
that tiles the of the square.
plane.

3. Decorate your
design as
desired.

4. Use your design to tile the plane.

Figure 10.23   Sierpinski’s triangle generated with an online applet (http://


curvebank.calstatela.edu/sierpinski/sierpinski.htm).
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–337

Devaney (1998) described a game that can be used to introduce students to the
mathematics underlying the construction of Sierpinski’s triangle. He described the
rules of the chaos game (Barnsley, 1989) in the following terms:

First pick three points—the vertices of a triangle (any triangle works—right,


equilateral, isosceles, whatever). Name one of the vertices 1,2, the second 3,4,
and the third 5,6. The reason for these strange names is that we will use the
roll of a die to determine the moves in the game. To begin the game, choose
any point in the triangle. This point is the seed for the game. (Actually, the
seed can be anywhere in the plane, even miles away from the triangle). Then
roll a die. Move the seed halfway toward the named vertex: If 1 or 2 comes up,
move the point half the distance to the vertex named 1,2. Now erase the
original point and repeat this procedure, using the result of the previous roll
as the seed for the next: Roll the die again to move the new point half the
distance to the named vertex, and then erase the previous point. (p. 92)

After following the instructions above for a small number of rolls, students should
connect the points generated. After many trials, regardless of the initial seed used,
Sierpinski’s triangle will begin to emerge from the pattern. The chaos game can be
extended by asking students to experiment with changing the rules and observing the
pattern generated, or by starting with a picture of a fractal and attempting to discover
the rules that generated it.

CONCLUSION
Geometry presents many interesting ideas to study, dating from the historical era before Euclid to the
present day. The fundamental goals of school geometry include understanding shapes and their defini-
tions and constructing proofs. Currently, we know that far too few students completing high school
geometry are able to write and understand proofs. Therefore, teachers must look for opportunities to
help students move past naive empiricism and develop deductive reasoning. Dynamic geometry soft-
ware can help progression toward this goal when used appropriately. As students move toward deduc-
tive proof, they should also develop an understanding of measurement as the process of iterating a given
unit. The iteration process applies to the measurement of length, area, volume, and angles. Geoboards,
rectangular grids, cubes, and wedges are among the physical tools helpful for developing students’ con-
ceptual understanding of measurement. Trigonometry takes angle measurement as one of its central
objects of study, and at the same time presents an opportunity to further develop students’ understand-
ing of functions. Relatively recent developments in geometry related to transformations, tessellations,
and chaos help add vibrancy to the subject. Sample four-column lessons are provided at the end of the
chapter to further spark your thinking about teaching geometry.

VOCABULARY LIST
After reading this chapter, you should be able to offer reasonable definitions for the following ideas
(listed in their order of first occurrence) and describe their relevance to teaching mathematics:

Euclid’s Elements  307 Geometric habits of mind  308


Normative geometric thinking  308 van Hiele levels  311
338–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Visual-holistic reasoning  311 DGE construction  316


Descriptive-analytic reasoning  311 Deductive reasoning  318
Relational-inferential reasoning  312 Naive empiricists  318
Formal deductive proof (van Hiele level)  312 Geoboard  325
Rigor (van Hiele level)  312 Unit circle  331
Taxicab geometry  312 Clinometer  332
Prototype  314 Isometry  333
Hierarchical definitions  314 Tessellation  334
Partitional definitions  314 Fractal  335
DGE drawing  316

HOMEWORK TASKS
 1. Describe relationships that exist between the angles and arcs shown in Figure 10.3. Use dynamic
geometry software and geometry textbooks as resources as necessary. Show all your work and justify
your reasoning.
 2. Suppose your school is searching for a DGE software program to adopt for its high school geometry
courses. Examine the websites of at least three DGEs (e.g., Cabri, Geometer’s Sketchpad, GeoGebra;
do an Internet search to find the official websites). Then write a letter to the high school mathemat-
ics department chair recommending one of the software programs for adoption. Justify your adop-
tion recommendation with details about the unique aspects of the selected DGE.
 3. Use DGE software to construct a rhombus, a rectangle, and a kite that cannot be “messed up” (i.e.,
they retain their defining characteristics when dragged). Show and describe all steps in the construc-
tion. Then hide all portions of the construction extraneous to each shape, as done for the square
on the right-hand side of Figure 10.7.
 4. State a conjecture about the medians of a triangle (see Figure 10.9). Provide evidence that your
conjecture may be true by giving paper-and-pencil examples that are carefully constructed or pro-
ducing examples within a DGE. Then prove the conjecture deductively, drawing on other well-
known results from geometry.
 5. Determine how many segments of 10 can be found on a 10 × 10 geoboard. Also describe how to
determine the number of segment lengths of 10 you can find on an n × n geoboard. Show all of
your work and justify your answer.
 6. Do an Internet search on “proofs of the Pythagorean theorem.” Choose two proofs you would share
with a high school geometry class you might teach in the future. Explain the essential similarities
and differences between the logic of each of the proofs you choose.
 7. Form a nonrectangular shape on a geoboard and describe how to determine its area. Your shape
should be concave and have at least five sides. Then form another concave, rectangular shape on
the geoboard and ask a classmate to find its area. The shape you give to your classmate should pre-
sent a significant challenge.
 8. Draw a diagram of a manipulative that would help students understand the idea of angle measure-
ment in terms of the iteration of wedges. Write three progressively more difficult tasks that can be
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–339

solved by using the manipulative. Explain how your tasks could help students begin to understand
and appreciate standard units of angle measure (e.g., degrees) and standard instruments for angle
measurement (e.g., protractors).
 9. Do an Internet search on “Mira geometry tool.” Describe four different types of exercises that can
be done using a Mira. Be sure to cite the website from which each exercise idea was generated.
10. Describe how students could use a clinometer to measure the heights of very tall objects, such as
the school building or trees surrounding it. Write at least three exercises you would ask students to
do outside the classroom using clinometers. Include a diagram showing proper use of the clinom-
eter to measure a tall object.

CLINICAL TASKS
 1. Download the University of Chicago’s van Hiele geometry test (http://ucsmp.uchicago.edu/van_
Hiele.html) and administer it to a class of high school geometry students (be sure to request permis-
sion to do so, as noted on the project website). Score the test using one of the scoring schemes
provided. Construct a data display that could be given to the teacher of the class to summarize the
van Hiele levels of the students. Describe how the information in the data display could be used to
guide decisions about instruction.
 2. Download the University of Chicago’s geometry proof test (http://ucsmp.uchicago.edu/van_Hiele
.html) and administer it to a class of high school geometry students (be sure to request permission
to do so, as noted on the project website). Score the test using one of the scoring schemes pro-
vided. Construct a data display that could be given to the teacher of the class to summarize the
proof construction abilities of the students. Describe how the information in the data display could
be used to guide decisions about instruction.
 3. Interview at least three students. Ask each one to draw as many examples of trapezoids as he or she
can. After the students have drawn several examples, ask them to write a definition for the word
trapezoid. Describe what the students’ drawings and definitions reveal about their personal proto-
types for the concept.
 4. Ask a student to use a DGE to construct a square that cannot be “messed up” when dragged (i.e.,
it remains a square even when portions of it are dragged). Describe how the student responds to
the task. In your description, be sure to note whether a drawing or a construction is produced.
 5. Ask a student to work with premade constructions in a DGE for a rhombus, a rectangle, and a kite.
Ask the student to drag each shape and write about how it changes and stays the same under drag.
After experimenting with each shape, have the student write a definition for each shape. Write a
report that critiques the student’s reasoning process and final definition. In your report, be sure to
note whether the final definitions for each shape are hierarchical or partitional.
 6. Interview a student who has completed high school geometry and provide him or her access to a ruler
and protractor. Ask the student if it is true that all triangles have interior angles whose measures sum
to 180 degrees. Then ask the student to justify his or her position. If the student does not use a deduc-
tive proof, ask whether he or she can produce a proof like those done in high school geometry classes.
Write a report describing what you learned about the student’s thinking. In your report, be sure to
address whether or not the student exhibited an intellectual need to produce a deductive proof.
 7. Interview a geometry teacher to determine which forms of proof he or she encourages students to
use. In particular, ask if two-column, paragraph, or flowchart proofs are used. Try to determine why
340–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

the teacher uses the form(s) of proofs mentioned. Ask for specific examples of proof exercises stu-
dents are required to complete. Write a report describing the forms of proof the teacher uses and
the types of exercises students are expected to complete. Also give a personal reaction to the ration-
ale he or she provides for choosing forms of proof for use in class.
 8. Have a class of students complete the “broken ruler” problem shown in Figure 10.12. In looking
through students’ work on the item, note how many correctly answered the item and how many
did not. Then analyze the papers of students who provided incorrect responses. Describe the type
of mistake each student made. Then select two students who provided incorrect responses for
interviews. Question the students to understand why they answered incorrectly. Write a report of
your findings, along with a general strategy you would use to help students overcome misconcep-
tions associated with this type of problem.
 9. Interview three students. Ask each of them to evaluate the truth of the following statement: “As the
perimeter of a closed shape increases, its area increases as well.” Ask the students to justify their
reasoning. Write a report on how the students evaluated the statement, including any diagrams or
work they produced in the process of doing so. Then, based on what you learned about the stu-
dents’ reasoning, write a follow-up task you would ask them to solve. The follow-up task should be
designed to help extend or correct the thinking patterns you observed.
10. Ask a student to determine the area of the trapezoid shown in Figure 10.16 without using a formula
learned in school. Write a report that describes the strategies he or she used to determine its area.
To prepare for the possibility that the student is not able to determine the area, write a set of hints
you would use to prompt him or her in the right direction.
11. Ask a student to predict how many cubes it would take to fill the box shown in Figure 10.17. Also
create a pattern picture of your own without an accompanying box picture and ask the student to
predict how many cubes it would take to fill it if the pattern picture were folded into a box. Have
the student check each prediction by using physical materials. Write a report that describes the
student’s initial predictions for each task and any revisions the student made to his or her conjec-
tures after working with the physical materials.
12. Ask at least three students who have studied trigonometry if it is possible to have a situation where

sin( x ) = 2 . Also ask each student to determine the sign of cos( 300 ), (i.e., positive or negative).
 
Finally, ask if sin( 23 ) is larger or smaller than sin( 37 ) . Have each student explain his or her rea-
soning for each task. If students use a calculator, ask them if they can also solve each task without a
calculator. Describe how each student responded to the tasks and then identify the conceptual and
procedural elements implicit in their thinking.
13. Ask a class to do a task of your own design that requires a clinometer. Have them show all work involved
in solving the task and then hand it in. Referring to the students’ work, the level of challenge the tasks
presented, and logistical issues, suggest ways to improve the activity the next time you use it.
14. Play the chaos game with a class of students. Split students into several small groups and have them
record their results on clear overhead transparencies. Each transparency should have the three
initial vertices for the game in the same location. Consider giving each group a movable dot so they
do not have to erase points while playing the game. When the students are finished playing in small
groups (let them do approximately 10 trials per group), overlay the transparencies on one another
and note how closely they resemble a Sierpinski’s triangle. Drawing on your experiences of playing
the chaos game in class, take a position on the appropriateness of fractal geometry for middle and/
or high school students. Defend your position by drawing on the observations you made while play-
ing the chaos game with your students.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–341

VIGNETTE
A N A LY S I S Focus on CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice 1–8
ACTIVIT Y

Items to Consider Before Reading the Vignette

1. Reread each of the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice in Appendix A. Which of these stand-
ards have you seen most often in classes you have observed? Which have you seen least often?
2. Provide a statement of the triangle inequality. Describe a strategy you could use to help students
understand the inequality.
3. Suppose that in triangles ABC and DEF, side AB is congruent with side DE and side AC is congruent
with side DF. We also know that the measure of angle A is greater than the measure of angle D. What
can we conclude about the lengths of sides BC and EF? Why?
4. Item 3 above suggests a geometric theorem commonly called the “hinge theorem.” Why do you think
it has this name? How would you help students understand the connection between the name of the
theorem and its content?

Scenario

Mr. Martz was just beginning his student teaching semester. He had serious misgivings about embarking on
a career in teaching. During his classroom observations, he had noticed that many students did not have
what he considered “basic skills,” such as the ability to solve simple equations and to factor and multiply
polynomials. They also seemed indifferent about studying mathematics, whereas he loved the subject. Now
he would be responsible for teaching the students he observed. Nervous about how he would be effective
as their classroom teacher, he had frequent conversations with his mentor teacher and university supervisor
about strategies he could employ. Mr. Martz was not completely convinced that the strategies they suggested
would work, but nonetheless did try to take some of their advice into account. In one of the first geometry
lessons he was responsible for teaching, students were to learn the geometric “hinge theorem” (see items 2
and 3 in the previous section). In teaching the lesson, Mr. Martz relied on a combination of his own intuition
about students and the advice he received from his mentor and university supervisor.

The Lesson

The lesson began with a warm-up activity intended to review the triangle inequality, an idea taught the
previous day. Mr. Martz put three sets of segment measurements on the board and asked students to
determine whether or not they would form a triangle. The sets were the following:
a. 1, 5, 7
b. 3, 6, 8
c. 4, 3, 7

In part a, students were to notice that 5 + 1 < 7, so the sides could not form a triangle. In part b,
they were to see that any combination of two side lengths added together would be greater than the
342–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

remaining side length. Therefore, the side lengths in part b would form a triangle. In part c, students
needed to reason that since 4 + 3 = 7, the segments could not form a triangle. Mr. Martz felt these three
cases would be adequate for reviewing the main aspects of the triangle inequality.
After about five minutes of socializing with one another, students settled in and began to write the
warm-up activity in their notebooks. As Mr. Martz circulated about the room, he was surprised to see that
many did not know how to start. As he answered students’ questions, he felt as if he were reteaching the
previous day’s lesson on an individual basis to each of the 25 students in the classroom. He was especially
disheartened because the previous day’s lesson had involved using a concrete manipulative, popsicle sticks,
to teach the triangle inequality. This strategy was recommended by both his university supervisor and men-
tor teacher. Sensing Mr. Martz’s frustration, his mentor teacher asked the class to stop working on the warm-
up problems and direct their attention to her. The mentor teacher reminded students of the previous day’s
popsicle stick activity and asked students to think of the segment lengths in terms of the popsicle sticks.
Questions about how to start the activity then subsided as students seemed to connect the work done with
the popsicle sticks to the task at hand. Some students requested rulers so they could draw the popsicle
sticks to scale to solve the review exercises. Within 10 minutes, students were ready to move on.
Next, Mr. Martz started what he considered to be the main part of the lesson: teaching the hinge
theorem. He asked students to pair up. After milling about for a couple of minutes, each student seemed
to have found a partner. The pairs of students were directed to use protractors to obtain two angles.
One pair member was to produce a 50˚ angle, and the other was to produce a 30˚ angle. Popsicle sticks
were to be used to indicate the side lengths in each angle. After the angles had been formed with the
popsicle sticks, students were to measure the distance from the tip of one stick to the other in each
angle. Mr. Martz had originally planned to have students do these measuring and constructing activities
on their own, but now decided to show students how to do each step in the process at the document
camera in front of the room, fearing that students left to their own devices might do some steps incor-
rectly. When Mr. Martz finished demonstrating the steps in the activity, he told students to notice that
the distance between popsicle stick tips was greater for the 50˚ angle than for the 30˚ angle.
After doing the popsicle stick demonstration for the class, Mr. Martz asked students to break up
from their pairs and return to individual work. Students noisily gathered their protractors, popsicle
sticks, and pencils to return to their original seats. When most students had settled in once again, Mr.
Martz distributed a set of class work exercises. In each exercise, the students were given a pair of trian-
gles. In each triangle, the length of two sides and the measure of their included angle was given. From
this information, students were to determine whether the length of the nonincluded side was greater in
the first triangle or the second. Mr. Martz showed students how to do the first exercise and then directed
them to finish the remaining exercises on their own.
Within 10 minutes, all students had either finished or stopped doing the class work problems and
begun to socialize. A few had their heads down and were sleeping. Mr. Martz had not anticipated that
his students would finish this portion of the lesson so quickly. He considered starting the next day’s les-
son, but there were only seven minutes left in the class period. Instead of starting something new, he
opted to give them their homework assignment. Mr. Martz loudly announced the page number and
exercise numbers for the homework. Some students wrote the information down while others contin-
ued to talk. A few opened their books to begin the assignment, but most kept talking. Mr. Martz had a
sinking feeling that his lesson had ended with a thud.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Which CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice are most evident in the vignette? Which are least
evident? In regard to those that are least evident, how could the lesson be improved to help students
better work toward the standards?
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–343

2. Comment on the numbers Mr. Martz chose for the warm-up exercises. Is his number choice helpful
for bringing out the main aspects of the triangle inequality? What improvements could be made?
3. How could the review of the triangle inequality have gotten off to a smoother start? Suggest specific
steps to be taken.
4. Comment on Mr. Martz’s use and organization of group/pair work. Were there times he should have
used it and did not? How could the process of forming groups be made more effective and efficient?
What kinds of tasks would be meaningful for pairs or groups to do in the context of learning the hinge
theorem?
5. How could Mr. Martz get students more involved in discovering the hinge theorem?
6. Did the structure of the lesson give Mr. Martz good opportunities to assess students’ geometric
understanding? Why or why not?
7. Would dynamic geometry software be helpful for enhancing any portions of this lesson? Why or why not?

RESOURCES TO EXPLORE
Books
Albrecht, M. R., Burke, M. J., Ellis, W., Kennedy, D., & Maletsky, E. (2005). Navigating through measurement in
Grades 9–12. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Description: The authors provide a collection of activities for teaching measurement in an inquiry-oriented
manner to high school students. Activities address the process of measurement, using formulas to measure
complex shapes, discovering and creating measurement formulas, and measuring with technology.

Battista, M. T. (2003). Shape Makers. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

Description: This book supports students’ work with Shape Makers in the Geometer’s Sketchpad
dynamic geometry environment. As students manipulate preconstructed shapes, they develop deeper
understanding of a hierarchy of quadrilaterals.

Clements, D. H. (Ed.). (2003). Learning and teaching measurement (Sixty-fifth yearbook of the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Description: This yearbook contains a number of articles relevant to teaching and learning measurement
in secondary school. Articles for secondary school teachers focus on estimating areas of irregular shapes,
exploring measurement through literature, and using geoboards to teach measurement.

Craine, T. V. (Ed.). (2009). Understanding geometry for a changing world (Seventy-first yearbook of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Description: This yearbook consists of a collection of articles useful for teaching various aspects of
geometry. Articles address topics such as teaching geometry for conceptual understanding, using
interactive geometry software, having students discover geometric theorems, and exploring fractals
in nature.

Day, R., Kelley, P., Krussel, L., Lott, J .W., & Hirstein, J. (2002). Navigating through geometry in Grades 9–12. Reston,
VA: NCTM.
344–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

Description: The authors provide activities that can be used to teach geometry in an inquiry-oriented
manner to high school students. Activities address geometric transformations, similarities, and fractals.

Pugalee, D. K. Frykholm, J., Johnson, A., Slovin, H., Malloy, C., & Preston, R. (2002). Navigating through geometry
in Grades 6–8. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Description: The authors provide activities that can be used to teach geometry in an inquiry-oriented
manner to middle school students. Activities address characteristics of shapes, coordinate geometry,
transformations, and visualization.

Websites
Learning Math: Geometry: http://www.learner.org/resources/series167.html#program_descriptions

Description: This website contains videos relevant to teaching geometry in the middle school. Programs
of interest to middle school teachers deal with proof, the Pythagorean theorem, similarity, and solids.

van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry: http://ucsmp.uchicago.edu/resources/


van-hiele/

Description: This website describes the work of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in
Secondary School geometry project. It provides insight on a large sample of secondary students’ under-
standing of geometry, and it also contains tests that can be used to assess students’ van Hiele levels and
proof writing abilities.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–345

FOUR-COLUMN LESSON PLANS TO HELP DEVELOP


STUDENTS’ GEOMETRIC THINKING

Lesson Plan 1
Based on the following NCTM resource: Groth, R. E. (2006). Expanding teachers’ understanding of
geometric definition: The case of the trapezoid. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12, 376–380.

Primary objective: To help students understand two commonly accepted definitions of trapezoid and the
consequences of each for quadrilateral classification schemes.
Materials needed: Paper, pencil, chalkboard, computers with Internet access

Expected student Teacher’s responses Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses to students and goals

1. Put the following Students may list Emphasize that words can After students have
writing prompt on a words whose different often be assigned a variety written for a few
screen or chalkboard meanings can be of definitions. Mention minutes, have some of
at the beginning of the determined from the that even some words in them share their
lesson: “Give an context in which they mathematics, such as responses with the rest
example of a word that are used (e.g., hack trapezoid, can take on of the class. Ask
has more than one can mean to different meanings in students for examples
definition. The word physically strike different definitional of mathematical words
does not have to be something or to break systems. that can be defined in
from mathematics. into a computer). different ways. This
Write at least two Some may list words will help assess
different definitions that can be either whether or not they
for it.” nouns or verbs (e.g., believe that only one
storm). definition can be
“right” in
mathematics.

2. Have students work in Some groups will At this point in the lesson, Ask students which
small groups to produce restrict their examples do not censor the shapes shapes on the board
as many examples of to quadrilaterals with on the chalkboard. The should be considered
trapezoids as possible. exactly one pair of purpose of this portion of trapezoids and which
After working for a few parallel sides. the lesson is to engage should not. This
minutes, each group students in brainstorming, should help elicit
Other groups will
should send a not to formalize their students’ current ideas
include examples of
representative to the thinking. The shapes on about how trapezoids
quadrilaterals with at
chalkboard to post the the board will serve as a are to be defined. It
least one pair of
examples they catalyst for discussions will also get students
parallel sides.
generated. throughout the rest of the thinking about how
Some groups will lesson. they might formally
produce shapes that define a trapezoid so
are not quadrilaterals. that the definition
includes shapes they
believe to be
trapezoids.

(Continued)
346–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)

Expected student Teacher’s responses Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses to students and goals

3. Have students return to Some groups will Draw attention to Ask students to write
small-group work. Give write definitions with weaknesses in students’ second drafts of their
them the task of writing more detail than definitions. For those that group definitions
a formal definition for necessary. Others will include too much detail, based on the class
the word trapezoid not include enough use just the necessary discussion that
based on the discussion detail to guide the components of the occurred after the first
and on examples that reader to produce an definition to produce drafts were shared.
have been given up to example of something examples. For those that The second drafts will
this point. they would consider a do not include enough become their working
trapezoid. detail, produce examples definitions for the next
that are based on the step in the lesson.
definition to highlight the
inadequacy.

4. In groups, students Students will likely Ask each group to report As students report on
should do Internet find three types of the definitions they found. the definitions they
searches on “define definitions for After they have reported, have found, assess
trapezoid.” Have each trapezoid: a point out the three types of whether or not they
group use a different quadrilateral with definitions. Emphasize the found the two types
search engine (e.g., exactly one pair of two mathematical types of of mathematical
Google, Yahoo!, Bing) parallel sides, a definitions as being definitions. If they
so they obtain slightly quadrilateral with at commonly used in did not find both
different results. They least one pair of mathematics curriculum types, be sure to
should be prepared to parallel sides, and materials. introduce the missing
share their results with nonmathematical type of definition
the rest of the class. definitions. into the class
conversation.

5. Based on the discussion Some will still resist Emphasize the importance Give a writing
of definitions found the idea that more of consistency within a exercise: “Can
online, have students than one legitimate system rather than one squares, rhombi, and
once again produce as definition can exist, absolutely “correct” parallelograms ever be
many examples of and others will use definition for every considered trapezoids?
trapezoids as possible. both definitions to possible system. Why or why not?”
produce examples.

How This Lesson Meets Quality Control Criteria


•• Addressing students’ preconceptions: This lesson connects to school-based and experiential
knowledge of defining concepts and expands on students’ previous knowledge of geometry by
introducing the idea of the existence of more than one legitimate definition.
•• Conceptual and procedural knowledge development: The lesson addresses the concept that dif-
ferent consequences follow different definitions of a shape and introduces two different defini-
tions that essentially specify procedures to produce trapezoids.
•• Metacognition: Students are encouraged to compare their thinking with that of classmates at sev-
eral different points in the lesson, particularly during group discussion. Students are encouraged
to compare their thinking to information found online.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–347

Lesson Plan 2
Based on the following NCTM resource: Britton, B. J., & Stump, S. L. (2001). Unexpected riches from
a geoboard quadrilateral activity. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 490–493.

Primary objective: To help students develop and use strategies for sorting quadrilaterals into families
Materials needed: One geoboard for each student, one piece of dot paper for each student

Expected student Teacher’s responses to Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses students and goals
1. Have students work in Students will discuss While working with Ask students if a large
groups and attempt to what it means to have groups, encourage them square and a smaller
find all possible different quadrilaterals. to think of “different” as square can be considered
quadrilaterals that can Some will interpret meaning “noncongruent.” “different.” If they do
be formed on a 3 × 3 “different” to mean Congruence and understand that the two
section of a geoboard. noncongruent. Others noncongruence can be squares are considered
They should keep track will think that two determined by laying one different in the context of
of the quadrilaterals they shapes that are the shape on top of another this activity, they are
find by sketching them same except for size and trying to line the two ready to engage fully in
on a piece of dot paper. are not different. up. the lesson.
2. Have groups share the In some cases, groups When groups present Keep track of all
results of their will present shapes shapes congruent to examples presented to
geoboard explorations. that are congruent to those already presented, determine if students
Begin by having each a shape already ask if a transformation have identified all 16
group share one presented. Groups could be performed on possible quadrilaterals.
quadrilateral they may not consider the the shape to make it the In classes where some of
formed. Continue possibility of having same as another. the quadrilaterals are not
having groups share concave If concave quadrilaterals identified, provide hints
one quadrilateral at a quadrilaterals. are not presented, show that will guide students
time until they have no an example of one and to discover them (as with
new different ones to have students look for the concave
share. the rest of the possible quadrilaterals mentioned
concave quadrilaterals. in the cell to the left).

3. Take all 16 possible Some students may If a student immediately When students have
geoboard quadrilaterals immediately notice identifies obtuse angles difficulty expressing their
and sort them into two that obtuse angles set as the relevant attribute, thinking in terms of
groups. In one group, one group apart from do not immediately formal geometric
place all shapes that the other. Some may comment on the language, look for
have an obtuse interior have difficulty correctness of the answer. opportunities during the
angle. Place the rest of expressing their Instead, encourage the discussion to assess their
the shapes in a second thoughts in formal class to look for acquisition of the
group. Tell students that geometric language. additional possible language. For example,
all of the quadrilaterals differentiating attributes. students who originally
Some may identify
in one group have an When students use do not use the formal
attributes that are
attribute that is shared informal language (e.g., term acute should be
actually shared by
by none of the “pointy” rather than asked to provide
both groups.
quadrilaterals in the “acute”), introduce the descriptions of shapes
other group. Ask them corresponding formal that contain acute angles
to identify the attribute. term. at various points in the
class discussion.

(Continued)
348–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)

Expected student Teacher’s responses to Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses students and goals

4. Give students a Students may use Encourage students to go Assess whether or not
worksheet that shows various different beyond the stated students use
all 16 possible properties to form requirements of the task classification schemes
quadrilaterals on different by finding as many ways different from those
dotpaper. Have classifications, as possible to sort the discussed during class.
students cut the shapes including: number of quadrilaterals. Encourage In cases where students
apart and classify them sets of parallel sides, and support their use of do not come up with
in at least two different number of right formal language in their own original
ways. They should be angles, and type of describing their categorization schemes,
prepared to present symmetry. For categorization ideas to prompt them to devise
their classification example, some may one another. some.
schemes to the rest of put all quadrilaterals
the class. with one right angle
into one group and
the rest of them into
another.

5. As an extension to the Some students will Encourage students who As students present their
main activity for the be eager to take on work on the area task to area measurement
day, encourage students the task, having share their strategies with strategies, look for
who finish early to exhausted interesting one another. Time evidence of original
determine the areas of ways to categorize permitting, choose a few thought rather than mere
the 16 different shapes the shapes. Others students to present use of previously learned
introduced during the will need time to strategies to the entire formulas for determining
lesson. continue to class. area.
categorize the
shapes.

How This Lesson Meets Quality Control Criteria


•• Addressing students’ preconceptions: The informal language and sorting strategies students have
learned outside of school are connected to formal language and sorting strategies commonly used
in geometry.
•• Conceptual and procedural knowledge development: Procedurally, students encounter defini-
tions for different geometric shapes; conceptually, they come to understand and appreciate the
thinking processes involved in sorting and defining.
•• Metacognition: Students are asked to examine their thinking to determine whether or not they
have produced all possible shapes on a 3 × 3 section of a geoboard; they are asked to examine their
use of the word different in reference to shapes.

Lesson Plan 3
Based on the following NCTM resource: Kaufmann, M. L., Bomer, M. A., & Powell, N. N. (2009). Want
to play geometry? Mathematics Teacher, 103, 190–195.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–349

Primary objective: To help students understand and appreciate the axiomatic structure of geometry
Materials needed: A sheet of poster board for each group of students, markers, household objects to be used
for games (see Step 1)

Expected student Teacher’s responses Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses to students and goals

1. Students should be Students will be able to Allow students to Observe and listen to
divided into groups of draw on their out-of- work freely in groups students as they work
two to four each. Give school knowledge of at this point in the and take note of which
each group a games to construct lesson. Do not games have rules that are
miscellaneous set of rules. However, for intervene to correct contradictory,
household objects (e.g., some games, it is likely them at this point, incomplete, or repetitive.
buttons, pins, egg that some rules may since the next step of Also note the specific
cartons, dice, balls, contradict each other. It the lesson involves flawed rules. This
marbles). Tell each group may also be that some peer review. One of information will be
to devise a game that rules are not complete. the objectives of peer needed later in the
uses the objects and Some rules may also be review is to develop lesson.
consists of at least five repetitive. skill at noticing
rules. possible mistakes.

2. Tell students that they will Some students will give List all student ideas Monitor student
be reviewing one ideas that correspond on the board or a contributions for
another’s games before to the three main screen as they are evidence of suggestions
they will be marketed. categories of interest: given. Near the end aligning with the three
Lead a whole-class contradictory, of the discussion, categories of interest.
discussion about how to incomplete, and highlight the student Encourage further
determine if the rules for repetitive rules. Others suggestions that discussion until all three
a game are reasonable. will give ideas not correspond to the categories have arisen.
related to these three main categories
categories. of interest.

3. Have each group Since the previous Draw upon the Assess the students’
construct a poster to portion of the lesson assessment critiques against the
display the title of their dealt with identifying information gained in observations you made in
game and its rules. contradictory, Step 1 in the lesson assessing Step 1. If
Posters will then be sent incomplete, and to try to ensure that students missed a
out for review by repetitive rules, students are not substantial number of
classmates. examples of such rules missing important flaws while doing peer
should be identified by flaws in the games reviews, choose sample
students. they are reviewing. games to critique
Draw attention to together during whole-
flaws that students do class discussion.
not identify if they
incorrectly believe
they have spotted
them all.

4. Build the analogy Students with some Scaffold students’ By listening to students’
between the games the previous knowledge of learning by asking for responses, assess whether
students constructed and geometric proof may specific examples of or not they have difficulty
axiomatic systems. To do connect the rules of a if-then statements, understanding the role of
this, ask questions such game to axioms, and conjunctions, and the if–then statements or the

(Continued)
350–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)

Expected student Teacher’s responses Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses to students and goals

as the following: “What understand that effect of removing a impact of changing a


role do the rules play?” removing one rule rule from the game or conjunction. If so, have
“What role do if–then changes the system changing a them play the game
statements play?” “What substantially. These conjunction. Have again, this time with one
happens if you change students may also them draw examples of the rules containing an
conjunctions like and or speak of objects used from their own games if–then statement or
or?” “What happens if to play the game as or from the games conjunction changed.
you remove one of the undefined terms, and they reviewed. They can then report
rules?” “What elements of plays that occur Introduce formal back on their
of the game correspond during the game as geometric language observations.
to geometric theorems theorems. Even those as necessary if it does
and undefined terms?” without much proof not arise in the
experience may conversation.
recognize the role of
if-then statements and
how a rule is often
changed substantially
when a conjunction is
changed.

5. Ask students to compare Students will offer Record student ideas Assess the strengths and
the U.S. government to various ideas. They on the board as they weaknesses of the
an axiomatic system. may compare the U.S. are offered. analogies students offer.
Lead a brainstorming Constitution to a set of Encourage students to In cases where analogies
session about how the postulates, compare construct analogies are greatly stretched, ask
U.S. government is legislation to theorems, about postulates, if a different analogy that
axiomatically different and give reasons for theorems, and uses the same formal
from other forms of adhering to different axiomatic systems if terminology can be
government. axiomatic systems. they do not arise constructed.
naturally.

How This Lesson Meets Quality Control Criteria


•• Addressing students’ preconceptions: Students’ out-of-school experiences with rules of games are
drawn on to build the idea of an axiomatic system. Students’ school-based knowledge of govern-
ment provides another analogous situation for study.
•• Conceptual and procedural knowledge development: The activities develop the overall concept
of an axiomatic system. Students work with the set of permissible procedures within the systems
they investigate.
•• Metacognition: After receiving classmates’ critiques, students are prompted to reexamine the rules
they established for the games at the beginning of class. Students reexamine the rules they estab-
lished by comparing them to geometric axioms.

Lesson Plan 4
Based on the following NCTM resource: Buhl, D., Oursland, M., & Finco, K. (2003). The legend of
Paul Bunyan: An exploration in measurement. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8, 441–448.
Chapter 10   Developing Students’ Geometric Thinking–351

Primary objective: To model length, area, and volume measurement and connect them to scale factor and
proportion
Materials needed: Cardboard replica of an ax; dimensions of length, breadth, average depth, maximum
depth, and volume for a local lake; modeling clay for student use; a piece of grid paper for each student; a
set of cubes for each student

Expected student Teacher’s responses to Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses students and goals

1. Read a version of the Students may List all student As students offer ideas,
legend of Paul Bunyan to identify length, area, responses as they are start asking which units
the class (see www and volume as offered. To summarize are commonly used to
.paulbunyantrail.com/). Be important elements their responses and lead measure length, area,
sure to emphasize (1) the in the story. These into the next portion of and volume. Also ask
size of Paul Bunyan’s blue elements pertain to the lesson, emphasize them to explain why
ox, Babe; (2) the Babe’s height, Paul’s ideas that include these measures are
dimensions of Paul skillet, and Paul’s measurement of length, used. Students’
Bunyan’s skillet; and (3) the length, respectively. area, and volume. responses will begin to
volume of the lake in Students may Acknowledge the provide a sense of
which Paul Bunyan worked. identify additional validity of geometric whether they
After reading the story, ask elements in the measurement ideas that understand geometric
students to identify story that may be fall outside these three measurement
connections to geometric measured. aspects as well. conceptually.
measurement.

2. Show students a cardboard NAEP data show Remind students that Assess students’ work
replica of an ax. Mention that students often length measurement, for reasonable estimates
that the distance between have difficulty whether using standard at this point. It is not
Babe’s horns was 42 ax measuring one or nonstandard units, necessary that they
handles. Then ask students distance in terms of consists of iterating the know the exact length
to estimate the following another. Students units end to end so of the school building
lengths in terms of ax may want to use a there are no gaps or or the exact distance
handles and also in terms standard unit of overlaps. If they struggle from school to home.
of the distance between measurement to begin the tasks, have However, before
Babe’s horns: (1) the length instead of trying to them take the moving on to the next
of the school building and estimate lengths cardboard ax and few tasks, make sure
(2) the distance from school using nonstandard measure out 42 ax their estimates reflect
to home. units of measure. handles to understand reasonable
the size of the unit of approximations.
measure being used.

3. Tell students that Paul Setting up the If students obtain Ask students who
Bunyan’s skillet covered an proportion 50,824 feet, ask them to obtain 50,824 feet for
acre of land (43,560 ft2). incorrectly can draw a diagram of a the radius why this
Ask them to determine its produce an answer circle with such a cannot be a correct
radius. of 50,824 feet for radius and determine its answer.
the radius. area.

4. Tell students that Paul Students may take Encourage students to A broad range of
Bunyan was supposed to several factors into think about the answers are possible,
have created lakes by account, including dimensions of a foot in but the key thing to
stomping through muddy the possible terms of area. If assess is whether or not
land. The students’ task will dimensions of Paul’s necessary, have students the answers are justified
be to examine data foot, the amount trace out a foot on grid by mathematics and the
regarding the dimensions of one would expect a paper and then think context of the story.

(Continued)
352–Part II   Developing and Teaching Mathematical Thinking

(Continued)

Expected student Teacher’s responses to Assessment strategies


Steps of the lesson responses students and goals

a lake to argue whether or foot to sink in mud, about how many pieces Students may come to
not this is a reasonable and whether or not of grid paper would be different conclusions
extension to the legend. the dimensions of needed for Paul’s foot. If about whether or not it
Choose a local lake and Paul’s foot would it is necessary to help is a reasonable
provide data on its length, line up with the students think about the extension of the legend
breadth, average depth, dimensions of a reasonableness of to say that Paul created
maximum depth, and lake. They might volume measurement, lakes with his
volume. For dimensions of also consider have cubes available footprints, but their
the Great Lakes, do an whether or not that they can use to justifications must be
Internet search on “Great several footprints create a scale model of reasonable.
Lakes dimensions.” end to end would the chosen lake.
measure out the
given dimensions of
a lake.

5. To conclude the activity, Students will draw Ask students who finish At the end of the
have students use modeling on measurements the task before others to lesson, have students
clay to construct scale done earlier in the construct a scale model share their scale
models of several of the lesson to construct of the lake explored models with the rest of
objects of the lesson, Paul and Babe. The earlier. Those still the class. As they
including Paul, Babe, and frying pan may be working can check their present, check to see
Paul’s frying pan. constructed as a models by comparing whether the dimensions
square and then them with one another. they have chosen are
molded into a reasonable.
circle. Some
students will finish
early.

How This Lesson Meets Quality Control Criteria


•• Addressing students’ preconceptions: Students’ out-of-school experiences with legends and tall
tales are engaged as they evaluate the sizes of objects from one particular tale. Students begin to
make connections among the previously learned concepts of distance, area, volume, ratio, and
proportion.
•• Conceptual and procedural knowledge development: Students are prompted to explore the con-
cept of measurement in terms of the foundational principle of iteration of a unit. Students draw
on procedural knowledge in solving proportions.
•• Metacognition: Students are prompted to evaluate the reasonableness of their measurements by
checking their results against the description of events provided in the legend. The teacher plays
a role in prompting students to rethink their estimations when they are not reasonable.

You might also like