April 26, 2015

In the readings by Woleck and Mack, they discuss the three levels of geometric
reasoning: visual, descriptive, and informal deduction. They explain how crucial the
understanding of these levels are in order to provide students with a rich conceptual
knowledge of geometry.
The visual level describes students who understand shapes based upon
resemblance. For example, a student sees a circle recalls the shape of a cookie, declaring
the shape to be that same shape; a circle. These students have been exposed to an
example of a shape and are able to identify similar examples as that shape.
Students at the descriptive level understand that shapes are defined by their
attributes. For example, a student who has a descriptive level understanding of a triangle
can look at an image of a triangle and express that the image is a triangle because it has
three sides and three angles.
Students at the informal deductive level are able to identify the relationship
between different shapes, and how the differences lend to the distinctions. For example,
these students understand that a square and a rectangle both have two pairs of parallel
lines and four sides, but the square has four equal side lengths.
With this understanding, teachers are able to guide students into their own
understanding of shapes through questioning. In the articles, the teachers began the
lessons by letting the students define and categorize shapes. Students were able to
recognize patterns between figures and identify them as a certain shape. The teacher not
only had the opportunity to determine what level of understanding the students had
previously from their justifications, but the teachers also were able to use that

understanding to ask questions that would increase the students level. Rather than simply
having students memorize the qualities of certain shapes, students discovered the
qualities. One teacher assigns each student a different figure and asks the students to
group up figures of the same shape. Students with visual understanding only grouped up
with students who had similar looking shapes and etc.
As a future teacher, I love the approach of these teachers. I want my students to
take ownership of their own learning, and ultimately come to a more rich understanding
of shapes through guided exploration. I find the questions in the Mack articles
particularly helpful for guiding my students to dig deeper after determining their level of
understanding.

Woleck 2003 Tricky Triangles.pdf

Mack.2007.Gaining Insights into Children's Geometric
Knowledge.pdf