Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T14:06:26.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of a traditional secondary school geometry course on problem-solving ability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

Phillip E. Johnson and
Billie Ranson
Phillip E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Written whilst at Kingston Polytechnic. Now based at: Department of Mathematics, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC 28223, U.S.A.
Billie Ranson
Affiliation:
Northeast Junior High School, Charlotte, NC 28212, U.S.A.
Get access

Extract

At one time Latin was considered such an essential part of the school curriculum that everyone was required to study it. If justification were needed for the requirement, the argument would likely be given that the study of Latin “trained the mind”. Is secondary school geometry in the same category that Latin formerly was, or are there legitimate reasons for requiring that geometry be studied by most secondary school students? Perhaps one reason for studying geometry is that it improves problem-solving ability in general.

The specific proposition that geometry improves problem-solving ability would seem to be subject to experimental verification, if indeed the study of geometry does improve problem-solving ability. The evidence herein seems to indicate that the kind of reasoning used in studying geometry improves the ability to solve not only geometric problems but other types of problems as well.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Mathematical Gazette , Volume 74 , Issue 468 , June 1990, pp. 114 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Mathematical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Blackburn, K., The path from algebra I to geometry to algebra II to development studies mathematics, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 253 417 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Borasi, R., On the nature of problems, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17 (1986), 125–141.Google Scholar
3. Goodwin, P.K., A study to examine the effect of curriculum materials on the ability of general mathematics students to solve verbal problems, Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (1981), 121A.Google Scholar
4. Greene, C., Greene, J.G. and Seymour, D., Successful problem solving techniques, Creative, Palo Alto, California (1977).Google Scholar
5. Harnadek, A., Mind benders, Midwest, Pacific Grove, California (1978).Google Scholar
6. Jurgensen, R.C., Brown, R.G. and Jurgensen, J.W., Geometry, Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1983).Google Scholar
7. Krulik, S. and Rudnick, J.A., Problem-solving, Allyn/Bacon, Boston (1980).Google Scholar
8. Ludlow, B.L. and Woodrum, D.T., Problem-solving strategies of gifted and average learners on a multiple discrimination task, Gifted Child Quarterly, 26 (1982), 99–103.Google Scholar
9. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s, Author, Reston, Virginia (1980).Google Scholar
10. Polya, G., How to solve it (2nd ed.), Doubleday, Garden City, New York (1957).Google Scholar
11. Roberge, J.J., A study of children’s abilities to reason with basic principles of deductive reasoning, American Educational Research Journal, 7 (1970), 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar