See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260364301

Cultivating Deductive Thinking with Angle Chasing

Article · February 2014

DOI: 10.5951/mathteacher.107.6.0426

CITATIONS READS
5 6,443

5 authors, including:

Michael Todd Edwards Suzanne Rushton Harper

Miami University Miami University
39 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 515 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dana Christine Cox

Miami University
38 PUBLICATIONS 181 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Center for Technology and Teacher Education (Bull & Garofalo, Co-PIs) View project

Mathematics Teacher Department - "Technology Tips" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Todd Edwards on 19 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cultivating

An

R
easoning and proof are central in the
study of mathematics. As Davis and
Hersh (1999) note, “Proof suggests new
mathematics . . . proof is mathematical
power, the electric voltage of the subject
which vitalizes” (p. 147). Recognizing the importance
of proof in the teaching and learning of mathematics,
NCTM recommends that “instructional pro-
grams from prekindergarten through grade 12
should enable all students to—

• recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental

JOrGeN Mac/thiNKstOcK

aspects of mathematics;
• make and investigate mathematical conjectures;
• develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and
proofs;
• select and use various types of reasoning and meth-
ods of proof” (NCTM 2000, p. 56).

426 MatheMatics teacher | Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014

Copyright © 2014 The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org. All rights reserved.
This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in any other format without written permission from NCTM.
Deductive Thinking with

gle This approach to determining

measures of angles fosters stronger

Chasing
understanding of formal proof.

Michael todd edwards, James Quinlan, suzanne r. harper, Dana c. cox, and steve Phelps

More recently, the Common Core State Stan-
dards for Mathematics (CCSSI 2010) describes
powerful connections between algebra and geome-
try in developing students’ understanding of proof:
“The solution set of an equation becomes a geomet-
ric curve, making visualization a tool for doing and
understanding algebra. Geometric shapes can be
described by equations, making algebraic manipula-
tion into a tool for geometric understanding, model-
ing, and proof” (p. 77).
Despite these recommendations, too often stu-
dents’ introduction to proof consists of the study
of formal axiomatic systems—for example, triangle
congruence proofs—typically in an introductory
geometry course with no connection back to pre-
vious work in earlier algebra courses. Van Hiele
notes that students must pass through lower levels
of geometric thought before meaningful study of
formal proof is possible (Crowley 1987). Premature
study of formal proof leads students to memorize
theorems with little understanding of their purpose
(Battista and Clements 1995).
Before their formal study of axiomatic systems,
students need opportunities to formulate deduc-
tive arguments in developmentally appropriate
ways. Research suggests that increased emphasis
on informal deduction fosters stronger understand-
ing of formal proof in subsequent instruction (Bell
1976; NCTM 1938). Recreational puzzles (Wanko
2010), dynamic geometry software (Sinclair and
Crespo 2006; Furner and Marinas 2007), and
image analysis (Maher and Martino 1996) have
been put forth as possible methods for promoting
deductive thought before study of formal proof in
introductory geometry courses. Here we present
angle chasing as another such vehicle.

Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014 | MatheMatics teacher 427


Fig. 1 in this elementary angle chase, students need to determine a.
INTRODUCTION TO ANGLE CHASING
Angle chasing, a process of determining measures of
angles using deductive logic, provides students with
an engaging way to explore fundamental properties
of angles. Angle chasing requires students to “use
facts about supplementary, complementary, vertical,
and adjacent angles in a multi-step problem to write
and solve simple equations for an unknown angle in
a figure” (CCSSI 2010, p. 50). A rudimentary angle
chase is illustrated in figure 1.
Deductive Reasoning
Recall that deduction is a process that establishes
truth on the basis of facts that are already known.
When constructing a solution for the angle chase in
figure 1, students begin by compiling known facts:
• The shape depicted is a triangle.
• The measures of the interior angles of any
triangle sum to 180°.
• The measures of the interior angles of the
triangle are 37°, 21°, and a.
With the last two observations, students note that
37° + 21° + a° = 180° and conclude that a = 122º.
Inductive Reasoning
In contrast to the deduction above, inductive rea-
soning is a process that posits the truth of a general
principle based on observations of specific cases.
In the initial stages of inquiry, mathematicians use
Fig. 2 the angle chase framework consists of three distinct steps.
428 MatheMatics teacher | Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014
inductive thinking to form hypotheses through
careful study of particular cases. Such hypotheses
are proved true by means of deductive argument or
are proved false through the discovery of an excep-
tion to the proposed rule (i.e., a counterexample).
Although inductive reasoning plays an important
role in the discovery of mathematical truth, it can-
not establish truth because inductive approaches
may overlook counterexamples. Both inductive and
deductive reasoning are essential in the discovery
of mathematical truth; thus, students require expe-
riences using both kinds of thinking.
In our high school geometry classes, we study
angle chasing through a combination of inductive
and deductive approaches. We have also used angle
chases in our content courses for preservice second-
ary school teachers. In this context, we attend more
explicitly to the model that guides our work with
the chases, depicted in figure 2.
Specifically, our high school geometry students
complete angle-chasing tasks in a three-step pro-
cess. First, students use deductive methods to solve
an angle chase with specific, fixed angle measures.
Next, students explore the same angle chase induc-
tively using dynamic geometry software (DGS),
dragging objects within dynamic sketches while
formulating conjectures about angle relationships.
Last, students consider a general version of the
original angle chase with variable angle measures.
The angle chase in this final step yields a formal
deductive proof. In the following section, we illus-
trate this three-step approach to prove that vertical
angles are congruent.
PRELIMINARIES AND
INSTRUCTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
Before introducing angle chasing to students, we
use hands-on, inquiry-based methods to aid under-
standing of the following theorems and postulates:
• The sum of the measures of the central angles
of a circle with no interior points in common is
360°; the sum of the measures of angles that form
a line equals 180°; and the sum of the measures
of angles that form a right angle equals 90.° (For
teaching ideas, see Keiser [2004], pp. 300–303.)
• The sum of the measures of the interior angles
in any triangle is 180.° (For teaching ideas, see
Whitman [2000], pp. 70–72.)
• The sum of the measures of the interior angles
in any quadrilateral is 360.° (For teaching ideas,
see Connected Math Project [2006].)

Once students have a concrete understanding

of these preliminary results, we use angle chases to
help them construct inductive and deductive argu-
ments associated with popular angle theorems—for
example, vertical angles, alternate interior angles,
and corresponding angles.

THE THREE-STEP APPROACH Fig. 3 this angle chase can lead students to discover the vertical angle theorem.
Step 1: Initial Deduction
Using the angle chase highlighted in figure 3, we
begin our exploration of the vertical angle theorem:
“If two straight lines cut one another, then they
make vertical angles equal to one another” (Euclid,
Book I, Prop. 15 [Joyce 1996]).
We distribute a paper copy of the figure and ask
students to find the measures of the angles a–d.
Using their previous knowledge of angles and tri-
angles, students provide deductive justifications for
each measure that they find. Figure 4 illustrates
paper-and-pencil work associated with the angle
chase.
Several important features are suggested by
the student work illustrated in figure 4. First and
most important, students determine angle mea-
sures using deductive arguments. Unknown angle
measures are determined using previously known Fig. 4 One student’s work shows a successful vertical angle chase.
theorems. For instance, students use the fact that
interior angles in a triangle sum to 180° to deter-
mine measures c and d. Repeated application of the
linear pair theorem—the angle measures of a linear
pair sum to 180°—is used to calculate the measures
a and b. Further, the work suggests that students
are not familiar with special relationships between
vertical angles (that measures a and b are equal is
not made explicit). In fact, the angle chase in
figure 4 has been constructed specifically to foster
the discovery that vertical angles are congruent,
a result that is further developed using dynamic (a) (b)
geometry software in the next step of the activity.

Step 2: Inductive Step

After students complete the initial angle chase with
a paper copy, they are asked to identify possible
relationships that may exist among angles. Analyz-
ing their work, students recognize that the angle
measures a and b are equal (in fact, three angles
have measures of 62°). Using a dynamic version
of the angle chase (available at http://tinyurl.com/ (c) (d)
verticalangles), students check their initial solu-
tions while exploring observations more generally. Fig. 5 as points are dragged, the vertical angles remain congruent.

Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014 | MatheMatics teacher 429

 For instance, do angle measures of the three angles
remain equal when points are dragged? Screen
shots of the dynamic sketch are shown in figure 5.
Figure 5 demonstrates that the three angles
with known measures in the original angle chase—
labeled as 62°, 67°, and 118° in figure 5(a)—are
not fixed. When students click on the Show unknown
angle measures box, the measures a, b, c, and d are
revealed. As students drag points in the dynamic
sketch, depicted in figures 5(c) and 5(d), mea-
sures a and b remain equal. Through an inductive
approach, it is possible to generate the hypothesis
that nonadjacent angles formed by intersecting
lines are congruent. In class, we note that “non-
adjacent angles formed by intersecting lines” are
commonly referred to as vertical angles. New vocab-
ulary is introduced organically through exploration
and class discussion.
solve more sophisticated problems. We use angle
chases such as the one depicted in figure 7 as tools
for increasing deductive fluency and reviewing
important angle theorems.
Our students regard angle chases as puzzles.
As we engage them in the three-part angle-chasing
process, deductive proof becomes clearer. Students
are reminded that appearance alone does not
adequately prove the measure of angles. Moreover,
angle chasing provides an organic opportunity to
introduce the geometric conventions and symbol-
ism that formalize thinking and help students
communicate their ideas more precisely. In the
angle chase shown in figure 7, hash marks denote
congruent segments; arrows mark parallel lines;
and a small square within an angle indicates a mea-
sure of 90°. By convention, bold segments have the

Step 3: Final Deduction

After students have formed hypotheses regarding
the congruence of vertical angles, measures from the
original pencil-and-paper angle chase are replaced
with variables (note variables x and y in fig. 6). Solv-
ing a more general version of the angle chase pro-
vides a general proof of the vertical angle theorem.
An analogous approach may be used in the devel-
opment of other common theorems. For instance,
the worksheets provided at www.nctm.org/mt
—along with dynamic sketches that accompany
each—may be used to motivate students to develop
proofs that pairs of alternate interior angles and
pairs of corresponding angles are congruent.
Fig. 7 an angle chase can combine several angle theorems
FOSTERING STUDENT REFLECTION (dynamic answer key available at http://tinyurl.com/
WITH ANGLE CHASING advancedsketch1).
Once students are familiar with common angle
theorems, angle chasing provides learners with
opportunities to apply their knowledge of angles to

Fig. 8 in this advanced angle chase, there are five regular

Fig. 6 students complete the third step of the angle-chase framework with a general polygons. (a dynamic answer key is available at http://
proof. tinyurl.com/advancedsketch2.)

430 MatheMatics teacher | Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014

same length, and polygons with all sides bold are
assumed to be regular. The same notation is used in
the angle chase shown in figure 8.
The symbolic cues embedded in the angle
chases provide students with clues for determining
unknown angle measures. In subsequent lessons,
students use these symbols as they communicate
their own deductive arguments to classmates.
ESTABLISHING MATHEMATICAL TRUTH
Angle chasing is a worthwhile approach for devel-
oping inductive and deductive thinking with
introductory geometry students, for whom pre-
mature study of axiomatic proof is largely unsuc-
cessful. Angle chasing provides these students
with a less formal, puzzle-like context for engag-
ing in proof-writing activities in developmentally
appropriate ways. The algebraic flavor of angle
chasing connects students’ prior knowledge of
equation solving to less familiar geometry content
in a less threatening way. Further, the three-step,
­deductive-inductive-deductive approach that guides
our work helps students develop a stronger under-
standing of the process by which mathematical
truth is established as well as an appreciation of the
use of technology in the proof-writing process.
REFERENCES
Battista, Michael T., and Douglas H. Clements. 1995.
“Geometry and Proof.” Mathematics Teacher 88
(1): 48–54.
Bell, Alan W. 1976. “A Study of Pupils’ Proof-
Explanations in Mathematical Situations.” Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics 7 (1–2): 23–40.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). 2010.
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief
State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/
assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.
Connected Math Project (CMP). 2006. “Polygon Angle
Sum Exploration.” http://connectedmath.msu.edu/
CD/Grade6/AngleSum/index.html.
Crowley, Mary L. 1987. “The Van Hiele Model of the
Development of Geometric Thought.” In Learning
and Teaching Geometry, K–12, 1987 Yearbook of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM), edited by Mary M. Lindquist and Albert
P. Shute, pp. 1–16. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Davis, Phillip, and Reuben Hersh. 1999. The Math-
ematical Experience. Boston: Mariner Books.
Furner, Joseph M., and Carol A. Marinas. 2007.
“Geometry Sketching Software for Elementary Chil-
dren: Easy as 1, 2, 3.” Eurasia Journal of Mathemat-
ics, Science, and Technology Education 3 (1): 83–91.
Joyce, David E. 1996. Euclid’s Elements: Book I. http://
aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/
View publication stats
Keiser, Jane. 2004. “Struggles with Developing the Con-
cept of Angle: Comparing Sixth-Grade Students’ Dis-
course to the History of the Angle Concept.” Math-
ematical Thinking and Learning 6 (3): 285–306.
Maher, Carolyn, and Amy Martino. 1996. “The
Development of the Idea of Mathematical Proof:
A Five-Year Case Study.” Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 27 (2): 194–214.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM). 1938. The Nature of Proof: A Descrip-
tion and Evaluation of Certain Procedures Used in
a Senior High School to Develop an Understanding
of the Nature of Proof. Thirteenth Yearbook of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
edited by Harold Fawcett. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
———. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Math-
ematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Sinclair, Nathalie, and Sandra Crespo. 2006. “Learning
Mathematics in Dynamic Computer Environments.”
Teaching Children Mathematics 12 (9): 436–44.
Wanko, Jeffrey. 2010. “Deductive Puzzling.” Math-
ematics Teaching in the Middle School 15 (9): 525–29.
Whitman, Nancy. 2000. “Experimenting with Crazy
Cars.” Teaching Children Mathematics 7 (2): 70–72.
MICHAEL TODD EDWARDS,
m.todd.edwards@gmail.com,
SUZANNE R. HARPER,
harpersr@muohio.edu, and
DANA C. COX, dana.cox@
muohio.edu, teach prospec-
tive mathematics teachers at
Miami University in Oxford,
Ohio. JAMES QUINLAN, jquinlan@une
.edu, is an assistant professor of math-
ematics at the University of New Eng-
land in Biddeford and Portland, Maine.
STEVE PHELPS, sphelps@madeiracityschools
.org, teaches students at Madeira High School in
Madeira, Ohio. All share professional interests re-
garding the use of technology in the teaching and
learning of school mathematics, with particular
emphasis on dynamic geometry software.
Activity sheets are available to teachers as a Word
document that can be copied and edited for classroom
use; go to www.nctm.org/mt.
Vol. 107, No. 6 • February 2014 | Mathematics Teacher 431