A conversation was taking place over at Dan Meyer’s Blog (http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=17964) about proofs, which is a topic that I find myself faced with about this time every year.

This isn’t a new conundrum for me. I’ve been working for while now trying to make this idea of proof, which, when compared to the typical form of textbook Algebra I should be an easier sell. But it just isn’t.

Here are some discussions of my previous attempts to sell it. Posts from Nov 2, 2012, Nov 16, 2012, Dec 7. 2012 are a few examples of my thoughts from around a year ago when geometry hit this place last year.

The problem I have is that the academic norms seem to prefer deductive reasoning to inductive and use of the theorem names. Those two things seem important to decide on before starting the journey of proof. If you are going to prefer deductive measurements, it rules out using measurements in proofs and it requires a lot more formal geometric language.

The problem that I see is that to rule out measurements (at least from the very beginning) and to strongly increase the formal geometric language in a way that makes deductive proofs possible from the very introduction of proofs creates… well… what Christopher Danielson is quoted as saying in Meyer’s post… “one of the most lifeless topics in all of mathematics.”

In order to breathe life into the topic, from the experience I’ve had, you need to let students engage in ways that make sense to them at first. The target to start the process is simply to get them comfortable with the idea of designing a functional persuasive argument about a mathematical situation. This requires recognizing that they need to start with a clearly stated claim (preferably something that is provable) and then start supporting it.

I find it helpful to let them pull measurements from pictures first and use those in the proof. The idea of comparing two things by length and NOT measuring them to get the length seems to a lot of kids like we are making the math difficult simply because we want it to be difficult. If they sense there is an easier way to solve a problem, then the explanation for why that method is against the rules had better be very strong, or else buy-in is going to suffer some pretty heavy causalities.

Once they get the hang of making an argument, then we can start by having discussions about what kinds of evidence are more compelling than others. This is usually where the students can figure out for themselves that each piece of information needs its own bit of mathematical support.

Next we can start deliberately exposing the students to different ways of proving similar situations. Triangle congruence seems to be a popular choice. We can have conversations about proving a rigid motion or proving pairs of sides and angles. Eventually certain kinds of explanations become more and more cumbersome. For example, using definition of congruent triangles to prove that two triangles are congruent as shown here:

Then, we can start pushing into shortcut methods. Mostly because those angles are going to be somewhat tricky to find (and why do more work than you need to… the students DEFINITELY identify with that.)

By using this method, I am trying to create what I’ve heard Meyer call “an intellectual need” for additional methods to prove this claim. (Keyword: trying… not sure how successful it is, but I’m trying.)

Then, that transitions fairly smoothly into stuff like this:

… where we standardize the side lengths of two different triangles and see how many different triangles we can make and in what ways they are different.

Now, the tougher question is whether or not you allow the class consensus following the “Straw Triangle Activity” (which was a gem that came out of Holt Geometry, Chapter 3) to count as proof of the SSS theorem. In an academic sense, now we should “formally prove” SSS theorem. To most of the students, it’s settled. Three sides paired up means the triangles are congruent. What are we risking by avoiding the formal SSS proof? Do we risk giving the impression that straws and string are formal mathematical tools? But wait… aren’t they? What do we risk by doing the formal SSS proof? Do we risk our precious classroom energy by running them through an exercise there isn’t a lot of authentic need for right now?

Am I able to say that this is the definite recipe for breathing life into geometry proofs? Not even close. I am sure there are students who are completely uninspired by this. I can say using anecdotal evidence that engagement seems significantly and satisfyingly higher then when we used to run deductive two-column proofs at students from the very beginning.

But, we’ll have to see what the consequences are as we keep going.