The Art of Teaching

1938 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-80
Author(s):  
Daniel Luzon Morris

After a person has passed through the “discipline” of plane geometry, solid geometry, and trigonometry, he sometimes realizes the transcendent beauty of plane geometry. Why should he not realize this while he is learning it?

1944 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 272-277
Author(s):  
Frances M. Burns

The use of models in the teaching of solid geometry has long been an accepted practice, but in plane geometry they have found little favor. Although not complicated by a third dimension, many of the relationships of plane geometry are difficult for beginning students to understand. The visual impression created by a model often clarifies the meaning of a proposition or leads to a generalization. The purpose of this article is not to present a case to justify their use, but rather to indicate some ways in which the writer's plane geometry classes have found them helpful.


1870 ◽  
Vol 18 (114-122) ◽  
pp. 122-123

I submit to the Society the present exposition of some of the elementary principles of an Abstract m -dimensional geometry. The science presents itself in two ways,—as a legitimate extension of the ordinary two- and threedimensional geometries; and as a need in these geometries and in analysis generally. In fact whenever we are concerned with quantities connected together in any manner, and which are, or are considered as variable or determinable, then the nature of the relation between the quantities is frequently rendered more intelligible by regarding them (if only two or three in number) as the coordinates of a point in a plane or in space; for more than three quantities there is, from the greater complexity of the case, the greater need of such a representation; but this can only be obtained by means of the notion of a space of the proper dimensionality; and to use such representation, we require the geometry of such space. An important instance in plane geometry has actually presented itself in the question of the determination of the curves which satisfy given conditions: the conditions imply relations between the coefficients in the equation of the curve; and for the better understanding of these relations it was expedient to consider the coefficients as the coordinates of a point in a space of the proper dimensionality. A fundamental notion in the general theory presents itself, slightly in plane geometry, but already very prominently in solid geometry; viz. we have here the difficulty as to the form of the equations of a curve in space, or (to speak more accurately) as to the expression by means of equations of the twofold relation between the coordinates of a point of such curve. The notion in question is that of a k -fold relation,—as distinguished from any system of equations (or onefold relations) serving for the expression of it,—and giving rise to the problem how to express such relation by means of a system of equations (or onefold relations). Applying to the case of solid geometry my conclusion in the general theory, it may be mentioned that I regard the twofold relation of a curve in space as being completely and precisely expressed by means of a system of equations (P = 0, Q = 0, . . T = 0), when no one of the func ions P, Q, ... T, as a linear function, with constant or variable integral coefficients, of the others of them, and when every surface whatever which passes through the curve has its equation expressible in the form U = AP + BQ ... + KT., with constant or variable integral coefficients, A, B ... K. It is hardly necessary to remark that all the functions and coefficients are taken to be rational functions of the coordinates, and that the word integral has reference to the coordinates.


1932 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 204-208
Author(s):  
C. C. Pruitt

Probably no subject in the high school curriculum is receiving more attention today than that of plane geometry in the tenth grade. Much of this attention is directed towards the possibility of fusing plane and solid geometry into one course. From this situaation, one would infer that all is not well in either the field of plane geometry or that of solid, with probability in both. I think all teachers of mathematics in the senior high school are agreed that the teaching of plane geometry has not advanced to the point where we are satisfied with the results obtained.


1936 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Edith Imogene Brown

For Several years the first few weeks of my course in Solid Geometry were very discouraging both to the class and to the teacher. It became evident that a different approach to the subject was necessary. After much thought and research I worked out a method which has proved very satisfactory with my classes.


1941 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Margaret C. Amig

By the time the pupil has reached locus problems (about the beginning of the second semester of plane geometry), he is pretty well acquainted with figures and has learned to observe relationships between their parts—points, lines, and angles. He has been taught to pick the hypothesis out of a statement and draw a figure to illustrate it. With the figure before him, his task is then to discover or to prove certain conclusions about the figure. Locus problems must be approached in a very different way. No description of the figure is presented to the pupil nor is he expected to draw a figure all at once. The problem is to use certain key points or lines in order to locate a set of points which obey certain given conditions. In other words the pupil is to show how a figure grows rather than merely to produce one.


Apeiron ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-269
Author(s):  
Ernesto Paparazzo

Abstract The present article investigates a passage of the Timaeus in which Plato describes the construction of the pyramid. Scholars traditionally interpreted it as involving that the solid angle at the vertex of the pyramid is equal, or nearly so, to 180°, a value which they took to be that of the most obtuse of plane angles. I argue that this interpretation is not warranted, because it conflicts with both the geometrical principles which Plato in all probability knew and the context of the Timaeus. As well as recalling the definitions and properties of plane angles and solid angles in Euclid’s Elements, I offer an alternative interpretation, which in my opinion improves the comprehension of the passage, and makes it consistent with both the immediate and wider context of the Timaeus. I suggest that the passage marks a transition from plane geometry to solid geometry within Plato’s account of the universe.


1923 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 421-424
Author(s):  
Louis A. McCoy

Shall we have a general course in mathematics for the first two years in high school, or shall we stick to the time-honored one year of algebra and one year of plane geometry? By the general course we mean a course, unified as far as possible from the standpoint of subject-matter, coherently connected, and consisting of some arithmetic, some algebra, some plane geometry, a little solid geometry, and the idea and the use of the function in numerical trigonometry. If there be any justification for such a course, it must be that it can do more for a pupil, give him better equipment, and more power, so that he can take his place as an intelligent member of the community if he should leave school, or be a greater aid to him should he continue his school work in preparation for college.


1940 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-40
Author(s):  
James V. Bernardo

It has been my experience; as it has been undoubtedly that of many who teach solid geometry, to find that the three-dimensional concepts are not easily conceived by the average student. He does not comprehend fully the meaning of the drawings of “solid” figures in one plane. To develop an aptitude for drawing and for interpreting figures is the real job for the teacher who is attempting to expound the propositions of the sixth, seventh, and eighth “Books” of Euclid.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document