Experimental Programs: High school geometry via ruler-and-protractor axioms— report on a classroom trial

1961 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 353-360
Author(s):  
Max S. Bell

There is considerable talk these days about curriculum “reform” in secondary- school mathematics. From our past experience, however, we can infer that such reforms will be very difficult to implement; witness, for example, the stability of solid geometry as a semester course in the twelfth grade despite repeated recommendations over a number of years for change to something more fruitful and useful.

1975 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 486-493
Author(s):  
George Gearhart

A survey of the attitudes of secondary school mathematics teachers toward geometry.


2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-185
Author(s):  
Eric W. Hart

Secondary school geometry is perhaps most succinctly described as the study of shape. Many aspects of shape are studied, such as properties of and relationships among shapes, location of shapes, transformations of shapes, and reasoning about shape. Consider an important counterpoint to this shape story or perhaps chapter zero in the story—the study of vertex-edge graphs, which are geometric objects for which shape is not an essential characteristic.


1974 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-178
Author(s):  
Charles A. Reeves

The last decade has ushered in numerous changes in the teaching of high school geometry—changes due primarily to the impetus of curriculum committees such as the Commission on Mathematics. One trend is that of integrating plane and solid geometry “topicwise” into one course; that is, as each topic is studied in two dimensions, the concept is immediately extended to three dimensions if possible. This pedagogical technique undoubtedly helps students grasp related ideas more readily than if those ideas were presented as separate entities.


2009 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-304
Author(s):  
Anne Larson Quinn

Many students find proofs frustrating, and teachers struggle with how to help students write proofs. In fact, it is well documented that most students who have studied proofs in high school geometry courses do not master them and do not understand their function (Battista 2007; Harel and Sowder 2007). And yet, according to NCTM's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics(2000), “By the end of secondary school, students should be able to understand and produce mathematical proofs … and should appreciate the value of such arguments” (p. 56).


1971 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
Richard H. Gast

Before I attempt to answer the question posed in the title of this article, I shall present the various proposals for and against the inclusion of transformations in secondary school geometry that have influenced my response.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document