Engaging Students with Non-routine Geometry Proof Tasks

  • Michelle CirilloEmail author
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


Students who earned high marks during the proof semester of a geometry course were interviewed to understand what high-achieving students actually took away from the treatment of proof in geometry. The findings suggest that students had turned proving into a rote task, whereby they expected to mark a diagram and prove two triangles congruent.


Conjecturing Diagrams Doing proofs Drawing conclusions Figures Focus group interviews Proof Student thinking Tasks Theorems Triangle congruence Two-column proof 



The author would like to thank the teachers and their students for allowing her to conduct this research. She would also like to thank Jamie Sutherland, Amanda Seiwell, and Erin Tellup for assisting with the data analysis. The research reported in this paper was supported with funding from the Knowles Science Teaching Foundation (PI: Michelle Cirillo) and the National Science Foundation (NSF; Award #1453493, PI: Michelle Cirillo). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.


  1. Cai, J., & Cirillo, M. (2014). What do we know about reasoning and proving? Opportunities and missed opportunities from curriculum analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cirillo, M. (2009). Ten things to consider when teaching proof: What I wish I had known about teaching proof before I taught geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 103(4), 251–257.Google Scholar
  4. Cirillo, M. (2011). “I’m like the Sherpa guide”: On learning to teach proof in school mathematics. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proeccedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 241–248). Ankara, Turkey: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Cirillo, M. (2014). Supporting the introduction to formal proof. In C. Nicol, P. Liljedahl, P. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of Psychology of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 2, pp. 321–328). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  6. Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. (2012). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. The Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 11–33.Google Scholar
  7. Cirillo, M., McCall, N., Murtha, Z., & Walters, S. (2017). Decomposing mathematical proof with secondary teachers. In L. West (Ed.), Reflective and collaborative processes to improve mathematics teaching (pp. 21–32). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick & W. G. Martin (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards of school mathematics (pp. 151–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, M. A. (1987). Geometry for secondary school teachers. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1987 Yearbook (pp. 236–250). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2005). Transana v2.0x. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
  11. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Technical report on the nationwide survey: Justifying and proving in school mathematics. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  14. Herbst, P., Aaron, W., Dimmel, J., & Erickson, A. (2013a). Expanding students’ involvement in proof problems: Are geometry teachers willing to depart from the norm? Paper presented at the 2013 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Deep Blue at the University of Michigan.
  15. Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and doing proofs in high school geometry classes: What is it that is going on for students? Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbst, P., Chen, C., Weiss, M., Gonzalez, G., Nachieli, T., Hamlin, M., & Brach, C. (2009). “Doing proofs” in geometry classrooms. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), The teaching and learning of proof across the grades (pp. 250–268). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Herbst, P., Kosko, K., & Dimmel, J. (2013b). How are geometric proof problems presented? Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ recognition of the diagrammatic register. In M. Martinez & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 179–186). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago. Available from Deep Blue at the University of Michigan.
  18. Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A., Hadas, N., & Resnick, T. (2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized environments: A designer-researcher-teacher-learner activity. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 657–694). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1995). Released advanced mathematics items: Population 3. Third international mathematics and science study [TIMSS]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Keenan, E. P., & Dressler, I. (1990). Integrated mathematics: Course II (2nd ed.). New York: Amsco School Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Knuth, E. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, O. Skovsmose, & P. Valero (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Lampert, M. (1992). Practices and problems in teaching authentic mathematics. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 295–314). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Lampert, M. (1993). Teachers’ thinking about students’ thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 143–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. McCrone, S. M. S., & Martin, T. S. (2004). Assessing high school students understanding of geometric proof. Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meserve, B. E., & Sobel, M. A. (1962). Mathematics for secondary school teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reiss, K., Heinze, A., Renkl, A., & Gross, C. (2008). Reasoning and proof in geometry: Effects of a learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sears, R., & Chávez, Ó. (2014). Opportunities to engage with proof: The nature of proof tasks in two geometry textbooks and its influence on enacted lessons. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(5), 767–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? The Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448–456.Google Scholar
  32. Shaughnessy, M., & Burger, W. F. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 78, 419–428.Google Scholar
  33. Sinclair, N., Pimm, D., & Skelin, M. (2012). Developing an essential understanding of geometry for teaching mathematics in grades 9–12. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, R. R. (1940). Three major difficulties in the learning of demonstrative geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 33(99–134), 150–178.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, D. R. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving in the written curriculum: Lessons and implications for teachers, curriculum designers, and researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations