1

On the Absence of Enjoyment and Challenge in Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge
Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge is a textbook intended for use in a year-long high
school geometry course. It was published by McDougal Littell in 1991 and was written by
Richard Rhoad (New Trier High School), George Milauskas (Illinois Mathematics and Science
Academy), and Robert Whipple (New Trier High School). A web search reveals that the textbook
is still in use and highly regarded by many instructors. I opened Geometry for Enjoyment and
Challenge hoping I would find enjoyment and challenge. I found neither.
The textbook begins with a Letter to Students that presents four reasons for studying
geometry: geometry is (1) useful, (2) challenging, (3) logical, and (4) gives visual meaning to
arithmetic and algebra. Regarding reason (2), the authors write that [m]any people enjoy the
challenge of solving riddles and other types of puzzles. Based on the problems in this textbook,
it is clear that the authors really do not have in mind more than riddles and puzzles. The first
example given by the authors of a challenging problem is to count the number of squares in a
figure I have reproduced here.

Figure 1.
Of all the challenging problems that could be presented, the authors choose one with a definite
numerical answer that offers no room for creativity in solving. To illustrate reason (4), the
authors present the following problem.

Figure 2.
If angle 2 is five times as large as angle 1, what is the size of each of the angles? The answer
can be found by solving the equation x + 5x = 180. Notice how artificial this example is. When
would we know, outside of a fabricated demonstration that geometry gives visual meaning to
algebra, that one of the angles in a supplementary pair is five times as large as the other without
already knowing the size of each angle?
Almost all the problems in this book are procedural. They involve applying a definition
or replicating a procedure that has been demonstrated earlier in the book. Occasionally the
authors attempt to add some story problem spice. One of them begins: Arnex has a 30, a 60, a
150, a 45, and a 135 angle in his pocket. He takes out two of the five angles. Find the
probability that... (p. 71). I might be able to understand Arnex having objects in his pockets that
form angles of various sizes, but in this absurd situation Arnex has the angles themselves in his
pocket and can remove them one by one. Here is another gem:
Maxie and Minnie were taking a stroll in the Arizona desert when a spaceship from Mars
landed. A Martian walked up to them and pointed to Figure 1. XLr8r, XLr8r, XLr8r plus
YBcaws, YBcaws, she said. Pointing to Figure 2, she said, YBcaws plus XLr8r, XLr8r,
XLr8r. What might XLr8r mean? [Figure 1 shows a 90 angle and Figure 2 shows a 60
angle.] (p. 17)
Were Figures 1 and 2 already waiting in the desert, or did the Martians bring them? Describing
the Martians at least offers a little motivation for this strange translation problem. Oftentimes,
however, the authors simply slap a name onto a problem that is otherwise purely mathematical.
Consider the following examples:

3
Goofy Guff wanted to reflect the outline figure (the figure to the right of the y-axis)
across the dashed line. (p. 204)
Filbert knows that the two triangles ABC and XYZ are similar, but he cannot remember
what the correct correspondence of vertices should be. (p. 365)
Harry Halph looked ahead to Chapter 10 and discovered that the measure of an inscribed
angle is half the measure of its intercepted arc. (p. 372)
Deanna watched a spider crawl over the interior surfaces of a room from point (2, 0, 8)
to point (5, 10, 0). (p. 696)
Instead of describing a natural situation and inviting the reader to apply the appropriate
mathematical machinery, these problems present unnatural situations with the relevant
mathematical structure explicitly described. Setting up the problems this way removes a
challenge for the students and possibly leaves them with the impression that they will only ever
need to use mathematics when dealing with an explicitly mathematical problem.
Topics are often introduced with little motivation. Here is the first probability problem
presented in the textbook.

Figure 3.
If one of the four points is picked at random, what is the probability that the point lies on the
angle? (p. 49). Probability is one area of mathematics where it is difficult to come up with
problems that are not related to life outside mathematics, yet the authors of this textbook have
managed. I cant imagine a good reason why anyone would want to pick one of these four points
at random. Nonetheless, the first three probability problems in this textbook all involve Figure 3.

4
The first problem posed is particularly bad. All of the points lie on the angle, so the answer is 1.
A student using the method suggested in the book would list all the points (A, B, C, D), circle the
ones that are on the angle (all of them), write 4/4, and conclude that the answer is 1. It is strange
to first illustrate this method using a problem where it is completely unnecessary. Anyone who
understands the basics of probability should be able to read the problem and immediately answer
1.
Another topic that is poorly introduced is proofs. I am ambivalent toward proofs in high
school geometry courses. One the one hand, proofs are the essence of mathematics. In
constructing a proof we set up a chain of logical deductions that shows that the truth of our
fundamental assumptions necessitates the truth of some less obvious and often downright
counterintuitive proposition. A proof often (but not alwayssee the proof of the Four Color
Theorem) gives us deep insight into why a mathematical statement is true. On the other hand,
writing proofs can be a tedious exercise, especially when the propositions being proven are
completely obvious. Without presenting any motivation for doing proofs other than the claim that
[m]uch of the enjoyment and challenge of geometry is found in proving things (p. 23), the
textbook offers proofs of the following claims: if two angles are right angles, then they are
congruent and if two angles are straight angles, then they are congruent (p. 24). A student
with no previous experience with proofs could be excused for concluding that they are nothing
but trifling formalisms. Why not begin with a beautiful proof, like Euclids proof that there is no
largest prime number or the following visual proof of the Pythagorean Theorem?

Figure 4. <http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/Pythagorus/Pythagorean-1.pdf>
Proofs embody the principles of a foundationalist theory of knowledge that has been
influential in the history of Western thought. Brent Davis writes that most modern
[mathematics] curricula are organized around the ideal of the formal geometric proof, drawn
from the mathematics of ancient Greece and championed by rationalist philosophers since Ren
Descartes (p. 561). Under this system, mathematical statements are arranged into a hierarchy
that might be visualized as an inverted pyramid. Foundational assumptions (axioms) are placed
at the bottom of the inverted pyramid, supporting all the theorems that can be deduced from
them. However, epistemologists have also considered coherentist theories of knowledge that
picture truths arranged in a web of mutual support. Under this scheme, concepts and
understandings are understood not in terms of foundations and a logical structure, but as
coherences that arise among experiences and associations (p. 561).
With its heavy emphasis on formal proofs, this textbook privileges one way of knowing
above all others. In the Letter to Students, the authors are explicit about this point: [a]s we
become educated, we learn to rely more on reason and proof and less on superstition, prejudice,
and guesswork. Paul Feyerabend (1975) offers evidence that even in the history of Western
science, reason does not play as significant a role as philosophers of science have made it appear.
He opines that
[t]he history of science, after all, does not just consist of facts and conclusions drawn
from facts. It also contains ideas, interpretations of facts, problems created by conflicting
interpretations, mistakes, and so on. On closer analysis we even find that science knows

6
no bare facts at all but that the facts that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a
certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of
science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it
contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and
entertaining as are the minds of those who invented them. Conversely, a little
brainwashing will go a long way in making the history of science duller, simpler, more
uniform, more objective and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and
unchangeable rules. (p. 19)
The same case can be made for the history of mathematics. According to Morris Kline (1980),
mathematics had developed illogically. Its illogical development contained not only false
proofs, slips in reasoning, and inadvertent mistakes which with more care could have
been avoided. Such blunders there were aplenty. The illogical development also involved
inadequate understanding of concepts, a failure to recognize all the principles of logic
required, and an inadequate rigor of proof; that is, intuition, physical arguments, and
appeal to geometrical diagrams had taken the place of logical arguments. (p. 3)
He goes on to say that
[t]he current predicament of mathematics is that there is not one but many mathematics
and that for numerous reasons each fails to satisfy the members of the opposing schools.
It is now apparent that the concept of a universally accepted, infallible body of reasoning
the majestic mathematics of 1800 and the pride of manis a grand illusion.
Uncertainty and doubt concerning the future of mathematics have replaced the certainties
and complacency of the past. (p. 5)
So the authors of this textbook cannot object that geometry is by its nature a deductive discipline.
That view is false. Given this situation, there is no need to alienate students who do not share the
values of a foundationalist theory of knowledge by forcing them to regiment their thought into
formal proofs.
We have seen how the textbook, through its emphasis on formal proofs, embraces the
culture of wealthy Western males from Euclid to Descartes and beyond. Does the textbook make
any attempt to integrate ideas that might appeal to people who do not identify with this cultural
tradition? A few examples can be found in the books Mathematical Excursions and Career
Profiles. Unfortunately, the exciting ideas contained in these boxed sections are isolated there.
No attempt is made to integrate the ideas into the main narrative. Hence, students are likely to

7
simply skip over them. Even within these isolated sections, great opportunities are missed to
introduce rich mathematical material from non-Western cultures. For example, there is a Career
Profile titled Symmetry Unlocks Culture that describes the work of the archaeologist Dorothy
Washburn on decorative basket, cloth, and pottery patterns (p. 137). Here are some examples
of interesting patterns that the textbook could have included.

Figure 5. Ceiling of Egyptian tomb <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wallpaper_group-p23.jpg>

Figure 6. Indian metalwork <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wallpaper_group-pm-5.jpg>

Figure 7. Bronze vessel in Nimroud, Assyria

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wallpaper_group-cm-3.jpg>
The patterns that are actually included in the textbook are computer-generated and so simple that
I can reproduce them.

Figure 8.
An entire unit on symmetry could be built around decorative patterns, but that option is not
pursued here.
So much for the explicit content of the textbook. There is also a hidden curriculum
(Thornton, p. 202) that emerges from the textbooks structure. Every section of the book begins
with the phrase After studying this section, you will be able to... followed by a list of
objectives. Notice that this phrase is most easily finished with the description of a procedure. A

9
better textbook might begin each section with the phrase In this section, you will explore....
But this textbook operates with a factory model of learning (McLaren, 1994, p. 10) under
which students are programmed to perform a pre-specified function. Through its ceaseless
repetition of definitions, theorems, sample problems, and exercises that offers students no room
for creativity, the textbook reproduces the technocratic and corporate ideologies that
characterize dominant societies (McLaren, 1994, p. 1). As Philip Jackson notes in Life in
Classrooms, [w]e must recognize ... that children are in school for a long time, that the settings
in which they perform are highly uniform, and that they are there whether they want to be or not
(p. 119). School settings are highly uniform, but geometry lessons need not be. Students are
required to attend school, but they are not required to use lifeless textbooks. So that students may
enjoy the challenge of geometry, lets do away with Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge.

10
References
Davis, B. (?). Mathematics Education Curriculum. In ?
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: Verso.
Jackson, P. (?). Life in Classrooms. In ?
Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. New York, NY: Fall River Press.
McLaren, P. (1994). Life in Schools. New York, NY: Longman.
Rhoad, R., Milauskas, G., & Whipple, R. (1991). Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge: New
edition. Evansteon, IL: McDougal Littell.
Thornton, S. (?). Curriculum Design. In ?