You are on page 1of 19

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Journal of Mathematical Behavior


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb

About the concept of angle in elementary school: Misconceptions and


teaching sequences
Claude Devichi a,∗ , Valérie Munier b
a
UMR CNRS Lisa 6240, Université de Corse, 7 avenue Jean Nicoli, 20 250 Corte, France
b
LIRDEF (EA 3749), Université Montpellier 2 and Université Montpellier 3, 2 place M. Godechot, BP 4152, 34 092 Montpellier cedex 5, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper reports classroom research dealing with the difficulties encountered by
Learning schoolchildren in the acquisition of angle concept. Two obstacles were pointed out in pre-
Geometry
vious studies: the side-length obstacle and the salience of the prototypical right angle. The
Angle concept
first aim of the present study is to determine the extent to which a teaching sequence based
Teaching sequence
Elementary school on a concrete situation in the meso-space can enable pupils to progress in their conceptu-
alization of angles. This problem situation is based on the notion of visual field. The angle
appears in real space between two infinite directions that correspond to two lines of sight.
The specificity of this situation is to confront pupils with an angle between two infinite
directions in space. The second goal of this research is to study the links between the two
obstacles. To answer these research questions, we compared two versions of the teaching
sequence, one dynamic (the angle varies) and one static (the angle does not vary) in 3rd
and 4th grade classes. The unfolding of the sequence was analyzed and pupils were tested
individually before and after the sequence. They were requested to draw angles and angle
variations. The results showed that (1) the sequence helped the pupils progress (2) the
obstacle of side-length is not the only difficulty faced by pupils; the salience of the proto-
typical right angle constitutes a real learning obstacle and (3) the type of angle produced
and the ability to change its size are linked. In conclusion, the implications for teaching are
presented.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The acquisition of the angle concept is a widely studied topic. Previous research has identified a number of difficulties
encountered by schoolchildren (especially side-length obstacle and salience of the prototypical right angle) and reported
several solutions to overcome these difficulties. We present a review of these studies in the first part of the introduction.
Nevertheless teaching this concept still causes numerous problems. In this study we have two aims: to propose an innovative
sequence to enhance the children’s understanding of the angle concept and to study the links between the two obstacles
highlighted in the literature and which have been previously studied independently. These research questions are detailed
in the second part of the introduction. Then we expose the method and the results of this research. To study in what extent
pupils benefit from the teaching sequence we present both qualitative analysis of the unfolding of the teaching sequence
and quantitative analysis (pre and post test procedure). Finally we study the relationships between the side-length obstacle

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 62 18 84 49.


E-mail addresses: devichi@univ-corse.fr (C. Devichi), valerie.munier@montpellier.iufm.fr (V. Munier).

0732-3123/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.10.001
2 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

and the prototypical right angle obstacle. In the last part of the paper, we discuss the results and the implications of this
research for teaching.

1.1. The concept of angle: a multifaceted concept

Research on the angle concept was historically conducted within a Piagetian approach to children’s construction of
representational space (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956; Piaget, Inhelder, & Szeminska, 1960). For these authors, the same steps are
taken to build representational space as those taken for perceptual-motor space. The process begins with the acquisition
of topological relations (inside–outside, next to, open–closed), and then goes on to projective and Euclidean relations.
Accordingly, a child’s representation of space is topological before the age of 7 and then simultaneously becomes projective
and Euclidean. The angle has a particular status in this approach because, according to Piaget and Inhelder (1956), “It is the
analysis of the angle which marks the transition from topological relationships to the perception of Euclidean ones. It is not
the straight line itself which the child contrasts with round shapes, but rather the conjunction of straight lines which go
to form an angle” (p. 30). Mitchelmore and White (1998) consider that the angle is a highly complex concept and Keiser
(2004) highlights the similarities between sixth-grade students’ developing notion of angle and mathematicians’ struggles
to define this complex concept. According to Henderson and Taimina (2005) “no formal definition can capture all aspects of
our experience of what an angle is” (p. 38).
An angle can be defined in at least three different ways: as a rotation angle (turning), as a sector angle (the quantity
shared by the set of all superimposed angular sectors), and as a pair of half lines that extend from a common point (openness
or inclination). This multifaceted concept (Mitchelmore & White, 2000) is constructed slowly and progressively (Lehrer,
Jenkins, & Osana, 1998; Mitchelmore, 1997, 1998; for the developmental stages, see Van Hiele, 1986). The construction
process runs into numerous obstacles. In his review Mitchelmore (1998) reported for example that many students believe
that the size of an angle depends on the radius of the arc marking the angle or that one arm must be horizontal and the
direction always counterclockwise. The principal obstacle often found in literature is that many pupils think that the angle’s
size depends on the length of its arms. This idea was also suggested in Piaget et al. (1960) study, where children were asked
to reproduce a geometric figure composed of two complementary angles. In short, until they were 9 years old, the children
did not see the figure as a system of angles and they reproduced the figure based mainly on the one-dimensional measure
of the line segments, without taking the space between them into account. This study already brought out that children
focus on the length of an angle’s sides, a fact that will become the major obstacle reported in the research on teaching the
concept of angle (Clements, 2003; Close, 1982; Fyhn, 2008; Kieren, 1986; Mitchelmore, 1998; Outhred, 1987). Furthermore,
Mitchelmore (1998) also showed that children have great difficulty in coordinating the different aspects of the angle involved
in various physical situations (slope, intersection, turn, corner, road bend, etc.).

1.2. How to teach angle concept?

1.2.1. Teaching based on concrete activities


According to Van Hiele (1986), learning can only take place if pupils actively manipulate and experiment with geometric
objects in relevant, suitable contexts, and also take part in “useful” discussions and thinking. For angles in particular, Wilson
and Adams (1992) reported “van Hiele’s research leads to an important point: pupils need good activities designed to help
them to explore angles and their properties and relationships” (Wilson & Adams, 1992, p. 7). In the same way, Mitchelmore
and White (1998) pointed out the necessity of drawing upon children’s informal knowledge to teach them geometric concepts
like “angle.” These authors recently developed a theoretical 4-phase model of teaching (called Teaching for Abstraction)
explicitly designed to promote abstract-general learning (White & Mitchelmore, 2010).

1.2.2. Teaching based on meso-space activities


In France, Berthelot and Salin (1998) stressed a similar idea in saying that pupils should be taught geometric concepts
using problem-solving activities, but they recommended that these activities take place in meso-space (Brousseau, 1997).
The meso-space is a space defined with respect to the subject, including the space in which he (or she) can readily move
and observe objects. Experimenting geometry in meso-space is an idea shared by various authors in the literature (see for
example Berthelot & Salin, 1998), but few studies have tested this idea directly (Fyhn, 2008). Taking this approach, Merle
and Munier (2003) and Munier and Merle (2009) developed several “design-based experiments” (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa,
Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003). They devised a number of physical situations involving angles (height of the sun, compass, etc.)
with the goal of teaching this concept to pupils in a concrete way that is not limited to the space available on a sheet of
paper. They showed the efficiency of such an approach.

1.2.3. Teaching based on dynamic situations


Mitchelmore (1998) suggested another way of emphasizing openness – and thus of invalidating side length – as a useful
dimension in estimating angle size. According to this author, pupils must be given situations involving both static angles
and dynamic angles. He highlights that his distinction between static and dynamic is not the same as the distinction that can
be made between movable and fixed physical situations. A movable angle situation can be modeled both dynamically and
statically; as can a fixed physical situation: “For example, a dynamic angle model of a pair of scissors would represent the
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 3

action of opening it, and a static angle model would represent the result of the opening” (Mitchelmore, 1998, p. 279). Wilson
and Adams (1992) who discussed the traditional introduction of angles also suggested studying angles as both dynamic and
static. Masuda (2009) pointed out the necessity of developing students’ concept of an angle not only as static aspects in
relation to fundamental geometrical figures but as dynamic aspects from elementary through secondary school. According
to Browning, Garza-Kling, and Sundling (2007), trying to make sense of a more dynamic concept of angle requires more
than paper-and-pencil tasks (p. 284). The solution they proposed is to use technology. Such approaches have been widely
used for 20 years with the development of new technologies. For example, LOGO activities provide a dynamic visualization
of turning which can be beneficial to the children’s development of turn concepts (Clements & Battista, 1989; Clements
& Burns, 2000; Clements & Sarama, 1995). However, some studies, such as Simmons and Cope (1993), suggested that the
use of LOGO might favor trial-and-error strategies, inhibiting the move to higher levels of thinking. More recently, several
studies have shown the impact of the use of simulation programs, for instance “Cabri Géomètre” in classes (Healy, Hoyles, &
Laborde, 2001). Vadcard (2002) showed that the angle concept as an inclination could be grasped by tenth graders through
the use of an experimental device called “Cabri Géomètre II.”
Note that in the teaching literature the term “dynamic” refers to different notions. First, it can refer to dynamic geometry
systems such as LOGO activities and to computer-based animations demonstrating angle variations (Aubert, Devichi, &
Baldy, 2008). In a meta-analysis, Hoffler and Leutner (2007) reported an advantage of animations over static pictures, when
the visualization plays a representational rather than a decorational role. Regarding the angle concept, dynamic learning
environments are an appropriate display for illustrating the angle as an amount of turning (Browning et al., 2007; Clements &
Burns, 2000; Hoyles & Noss, 1992; Kynigos, Psycharis, & Latsi, 2009), because rotation is very difficult – if not impossible – to
represent in a paper-and-pencil situation. However, the angle concept can be dynamically represented without computed-
based animation, for instance by using something which has arms that can be more or less open: bent straws (Wilson
& Adams, 1992) or scissors (Mitchelmore, 1997). Another approach uses body movements to apprehend the angle. This
approach was developed by Wilson and Adams (1992) and Fyhn (2006, 2008) who propose mathematizing physical activities
involving angles (skating, snowboarding, climbing). In the climbing context for example, angles are shaped by the students’
bodily joints, by the ropes, by the planes inside the buildings; the climbing walls, the floor and the roof, and between these
different elements. Some of these angles are static (dihedral, i.e. a corner with two walls), while others are dynamic (arm
movements). These different studies consider that a dynamic approach facilitates the conceptualization of angles and that
paper-and-pencil tasks classically used in classes are not sufficient.

1.3. A particular angle: the right angle

Another element likely to hinder the conceptualization of angles is the notion of “right angle,” particularly in France.
Actually right angles are the first angles children encounter in French elementary schools. When at the age of 5 or 6 they
learn to distinguish between different geometric shapes, they are usually shown figures with right angles, such as squares
and rectangles. They have to be able to recognize and use a set square or a template of right angle. Thus the word “angle” for
them always evokes a right angle, and the very first angle category which is formed is the category of right angles. One of
the exemplars of this category is particularly salient and acts as a “prototype” (in Rosch’s sense of the term, 1975), namely,
a right angle that opens on the right with arms parallel to the edges of the paper. This canonical orientation is the one
usually shown to pupils, and they often do not recognize the angle if it is tilted differently (Close, 1982; Noss, 1987; Outhred,
1987). Browning et al. (2007) report that “even some adults still struggle with identifying 90◦ angles that do not have at
least one horizontal ray” (p. 286). The prototypical conception of right angle is noted in several experimental studies. For
example, in a developmental study carried out by Baldy et al. (2005), the children asked to draw an angle usually drew a
right angle. In a three-year longitudinal study by Lehrer et al. (1998) where pupils in Grades 1–3 were tested several times
on various geometric concepts including “angle,” the first angles identified in a construction task involving shapes were also
right angles.

1.4. Research questions

The main aim of this study is to assess the extent to which an experimental teaching sequence would enhance the
children’s understanding of the angle concept. To answer this question we compared the pupils’ representations of angle
before and after two versions of a teaching sequence (static and dynamic) and we analyzed the unfolding of the sequences.
Moreover most studies on the angle concept have focused either on the salience of right angle as a prototype or on
the length-of-sides obstacle frequently mentioned in the literature, but no study has yet examined the potential connection
between the two of them. The second goal of this research was thus to gain insight into the link between these two obstacles.
Are they independent? Does one precede the other? We hypothesized that if pupils base their estimates of angle size on side
length, it may be because their representation of the angle is centered on the right-angle prototype, which they are unable
to get beyond.
To answer these questions one part of our data aims to identify the pupils’ representations of angle before the teaching
sequence: is the prototype of the right angle salient? We studied the pupils’ ability to draw an angle of any kind, and then
draw other angles that differed from the first one. We attempted to find out when and under what conditions the pupils
4 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

understand that what makes angles differ from each other is their openness (how spread apart the sides are) and not the
side length (not how long they are).

1.5. The present study

The present study links into the continuum of the previously evoked works on the teaching of the concept of angle. We
chose to use concrete situations as a starting point in order to allow pupils to grasp this concept in real life problem situations
that make sense to them. We referred to Brousseau’s theory of situations (1997) which share a certain number of common
features with Realistic Mathematics Education initiated by Freudenthal (1991): we developed a learning environment in
which pupils could construct geometrical knowledge when they modelize these problem situations. We considered that the
use of models as a bridge between the abstract and the real allows pupils to learn geometry according to Van den Heuvel-
Panhuizen (2003): “Models are attributed the role of bridging the gap between the informal understanding connected to the
‘real’ and imagined reality on the one side, and the understanding on formal systems on the other” (p. 13). In reference to
the categorization of Kaiser and Sriraman (2006), we place ourselves therefore within the educational modeling perspective
which focuses on the structuring of learning processes.
The originality of the teaching sequence presented here is that it introduces the notion of infinite directions in order
to enhance the children’s understanding of the angle concept. This implies to develop activities in a large space. Thus the
sequence starts from an experimental situation located in meso-space – the playground – and is aimed at attracting the
pupils’ attention to the relevant dimension of angles, i.e., their openness. This sequence is based on the notion of visual
field: in the presence of an obstacle the visual field is delineated by an angle whose vertex is located at the observer and
whose sides go through the extremities of the obstacle. Thus the angle that must be constructed by the pupil is defined
by two directions which, by definition, are infinitely long. Introducing the angle as the space delineated by two directions
rather than by two objects with finite dimensions (e.g. the hands of a clock) should allow pupils to understand that the
length of the sides is irrelevant. It is this idea that constitutes the originality of our teaching sequence compared with
previous studies, even those involving meso-space. In Fyhn’s (2008) study, the angles are shaped by the students’ bodily
joints, the ropes and the planes inside the building (the climbing walls, the floor and the roof), without insisting on the
idea of direction. In LOGO experiments, the idea of direction is present but it is a question of the amount of turn and not of
“infinity.”
Moreover, in order to investigate the contribution of a dynamic approach compared to a static approach, in accor-
dance with Mitchelmore’s distinction (1998), we set up our experiment with two versions of the teaching sequence,
one static and one dynamic. We tested these two versions on third- and fourth-grade pupils. In the dynamic version,
pupils were confronted with a movable situation in which the angle could be modeled not only statically but also
dynamically, whereas the static version involved a fixed angle that could be modeled more naturally in a static way. In
accordance with literature, we hypothesized that the dynamic version (in which the angle varied) would be better at
helping pupils grasp the meaning of “angle.” Focusing less on fixed angular configuration, and being able to see how an
angle can change should make it easier for the children to realize that the relevant dimension is openness and not side
length.
Although these two versions of the sequence, both of which were designed to overcome the side-length obstacle, do
not include any specific work on right angles, we investigated whether or not the work carried out on side-length enabled
the right-angle prototype to evolve. To do this a post-test conducted after the sequence examined to what extent the angle
representation of each pupil would change.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Forty-five pupils from three third-grade classes and 45 pupils from three fourth-grade classes participated in the exper-
iment with parental consent (mean ages: 8;6 in Grade 3 and 9;4 in Grade 4). The pupils were all enrolled in schools in the
metropolitan area of Montpellier and were from middle-class homes. The classes were of “mixed ability” and contained a
range of children with different academic achievement levels.
Concerning the experimental groups, each teaching sequence was conducted in two different classes: the static sequence
was conducted in one 3rd grade class and in one 4th grade class, and the dynamic sequence was conducted in another
3rd grade class and another 4th grade class. The teachers were trained by the research team. Because of the fact that in
one of the four experimental classes only 15 pupils were able to participate in the entire experiment, we set the num-
ber of participants of all the other groups to 15 as well (15 per level and per sequence). In the other classes, 15 pupils
were chosen randomly among the pupils both present at sessions and individual interviews, respecting the proportion
of girls and boys in each group. In the same way, 15 pupils from each grade were chosen randomly to constitute the
control groups. Although angles are part of the 3rd , 4th or 5th grade school curriculum in France, none of the pupils
of the six classes had been taught the concept of angle, except for right angles which are introduced in 1st or 2nd
grade.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 5

2.2. Materials and procedure

The materials given to each child included several sheets of paper and a pencil, but no eraser. All the pupils in the sample
took a pre-test aimed at assessing their initial understanding of angles. For the purpose of detecting any progress made, the
pupils’ knowledge was reassessed after the teaching sequence (post-test). We used the same tests in pre and post-test in
order to be able to compare pupil performances. In each grade, the different classes were randomly assigned the different
sequences: one class was assigned the static version of the sequence, the other class the dynamic version and the control class
a standard teaching sequence (between-subject design). The control groups followed a standard sequence of four lessons
about angles (usual time spent for this concept in France). The teacher presented the angle in an ostensive way: “look! this
is an angle” while drawing an angle on the blackboard. He or she introduced the vocabulary (sides, vertex, acute angle,
obtuse angle, etc.) then the pupils did exercises mainly involving reproduction and comparison tasks. Given that the Official
Bulletin of French National Education (2002) points out the difficulty pupils have in learning this concept: “Pupils must, in
particular, become aware of the fact that the lengths of the ‘sides’ have no effect on the comparison of angles,” in classic
lessons some exercises are designed to overcome this misconception (for example, comparison of angles where the smallest
angle have longer sides). However the classic exercises used in the control group were paper-and-pencil tasks limited to the
“micro-space” of the sheet of paper.

2.3. Research design

2.3.1. Pre- and post-tests


The children were tested individually by a trained research assistant in a quiet room far from their classroom. The pre-
assessment data was collected one month before the teaching sequences, following the procedure below. The pupil was
first asked to draw an angle on a sheet of paper (drawing task). Then the interviewer asked the pupil to draw various other
angles (variation task):

Item 1: Draw an angle “different from the one you drew first.”
Item 2: Draw “another different” angle.
Item 3: Draw a “larger” angle (larger than the first one).
Item 4: Draw a “smaller” angle (smaller than the first one).

Items 3 and 4 were asked in counter-balanced order. The post-assessment data was collected three weeks after the
teaching sequences using the same procedure.
It should be noted that we chose paper-and-pencil tasks which are similar to classical tasks children are used to performing
at school. They do not involve measurements because angle measure is introduced only in 6th grade in France, contrarily to
the US where it is introduced in the 3rd –5th grades.

2.3.2. Design of the teaching experiment


The experimental teaching sequence consisted of four sessions lasting about an hour. We chose to respect the amount
of instructional time usually given to teach this concept in France (between 3 and 4 h) in order to be able to use these
short sequences in class. Two versions were tested, one called “static,” the other called “dynamic.” The sequences were
conducted by each class’s usual teacher, who had been trained in advance by our research team. The classes were filmed
by the members of the research team1 (different from those who had participated to pre- and post-tests). The pupils were
filmed from above during the experimental phases in order to have a general view of the participants’ movements. Finally,
for individual and group activities mobile cameras circulated to identify the procedures used by each group or pupil. We
present first a preliminary analysis of the specific features of both versions of the teaching sequence.

2.3.2.1. Preliminary analysis. This problem situation is based on the notion of visual field. The angle appears in real space
between two infinite directions that correspond to two lines of sight.
Session 1: Elaborating the problem “What can you see when there’s an obstacle in front of you?”, setting hypotheses
The aim of this first session is to lead pupils to question the concept of visual field. The teacher proposes to the pupils a
picture of a road-safety scene depicting several children in danger because they were about to cross the street but could not
be seen by a vehicle passing a parked bus (see Fig. 1).
The pupils’ analysis of this situation is bound to lead to disagreements and to the problem “What can you see when there
is an obstacle in front of you?” This road safety situation, designed to help pupils understand the problem, is complex, and
in order to simplify it, the bus is modeled by a screen in the remainder of the sequence. The teacher then asks the children to
complete diagrams modeling the situation, in order to make the different pupils’ representations appear. The modelization
of the situation seen from above is done by the teacher which should not raise any problem given that pupils at these levels

1
The interference of people video-recording is considered as insignificant because the pupils of this school are used to the presence of observers.
6 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

Fig. 1. Road-safety scene used to introduce the teaching sequence.

are familiar with this representation. The pupils had to color the area that the observer could not see. The aim of this phase
(conceptions collection) is to render necessary an experiment to delineate the areas that can and cannot be seen from a
given location in front of an opaque screen. This phase of manipulation takes place in the meso-space (Brousseau, 1997) as
regards both the size of this space (school playground) and the possibilities of control (possible action on the observer and
screen positions, possibility of an overview of the situation).
Session 2: Experimenting in the playground
In the playground, pupils are divided into several small groups. One group takes the observer’s position and the others
go behind the screen (during the experiment, the groups alternate as the observer). One pupil in the observer group sits on
a chair in front of the screen (located to the right bisector of the screen), while the others stand close by. All the pupils of
the other groups are behind the screen, close to the right bisector. They are carrying boundary markers and walk out from
behind the screen in either directions (in parallel with the screen) until the observing pupil can see them on the right or on
the left of the screen. As soon as the observer signals that a pupil is visible, the pupil puts his/her boundary marker on the
ground. Pupils must then observe the locations of the boundary markers, see that they form two straight lines on either side
of the screen, and verify this by laying out two same-color ropes along the markers. They must conclude that the boundary
lines pass through the observer. In the static version of the experiment, this procedure is repeated three times for the same
observer location, with three different rope lengths in order to invalidate the side length role, and should lead the pupils to
the idea of direction: the boundaries of the area are two infinite half lines. In the dynamic version, the same procedure is
followed (one position of the observer and ropes of different lengths) and two different observer locations are added (still
on the right bisector of the screen) in such a way that the area increases or decreases, therefore the angle changes. At the
end of this session, the teacher asks the children to show with gestures the shape of the hidden area. In this way pupils must
form with their arms the angle delimiting this area and mime the variations of the hidden area when the observer moved
toward or away from the screen, in accordance with various authors (for example Fyhn, 2008). The aim is not to see that the
boundaries of the area form an angle but to arrive at the conclusion that the boundaries of the visible area were two half
lines that went through the screen edges and the observer, and that the lines could be extended as far back as desired.
Upon returning to the classroom, the teacher gave the pupils an individual exercise in order to model the playground
experiment. The pupils had to color the hidden area in diagrams of various sizes for the static version, and in diagrams
of various sizes and observer’ locations in the dynamic version. The purpose of the boxes in this exercise was to force the
pupils to produce a “qualitative” diagram of the experiments conducted on the playground without having to introduce the
concept of scale.
Session 3: Emergence of the concept of angle as a delineator of the hidden area, devising techniques, and using tools to compare
angles
The teacher puts up an enlarged version of the diagrams as they were at the end of the previous session but without the
boxes, and asks the pupils to think of a way to compare the hidden areas for the two first diagrams (same position of the
observer but ropes of longer or shorter lengths). The aim is to enable the pupils to become aware that the hidden area is the
same for a given observer position, no matter how long the ropes were. The difficulty is that the colored areas are different
whereas the hidden areas they modelized are the same prompting discussion between the pupils. The confrontation of their
opinions is bound to lead children to give up their misconceptions and bring up the idea of infinite direction.
The teacher gives each pupil a copy of the set of diagrams with sides of different lengths, and asks them to think up
a technique for finding out if the area was the same. In other words, the teacher asks the pupils to devise techniques for
comparing angles without actually employing the term “angle.” Angle comparison is then induced by the problem itself and
appears necessary to the pupils. We deliberately do not give the pupils any algorithms that would have been meaningless
for them, and they are encouraged to figure out how to compare the angles on their own. For pupils in this grade, three
devices can be considered: templates, tracing paper, and an instrument with two articulated branches (scissors or compass
for example). Each one brings out one of the conceptions of the angle. Templates emphasize the idea of a sector angle. When
angles are compared using tracing paper, pupils manipulate pairs of half lines instead of sectors. The use of an articulated
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 7

instrument emphasizes the view of the angle as two half lines (inclination of one direction with respect to another, or
space between two directions). When pupils manipulate such an instrument, they open and close the branches, which
should promote a dynamic conception of the angle in terms of openness. In order to address as many facets of the angle
as possible, we have the pupils use all of these comparing and reproducing techniques, in accordance with Mitchelmore
(1998)’s proposals. Our aim is to help children detect the similarity of different physical situations represented by the same
geometric configuration (the angle), before beginning to categorize them (sector, inclination, etc.). We consider that the use
of various techniques should promote awareness of the multiple facets of the concept.
Once the techniques appeared spontaneously have been discussed, pupils have to agree on the fact that the hidden areas
are the same whatever the lengths of the sides. In the dynamic version the teacher confronts pupils with different positions
of the observer, which leads to variations of the hidden area.
In order to introduce the concept of angle, the teacher asks: “what determines the boundaries of the hidden area?” It is
not yet a question of considering the limits independently one of the other, but of coordinating these half lines, because it
is their openness which determines the extent of the hidden area. At the end of this session pupils must have understood
that in the presence of an obstacle, the space hidden is delineated by an angle whose vertex is located at the observer and
whose sides are two half lines, infinites, which go through the extremities of the obstacle. In the dynamic version they also
must have understood that when the observer moves away from the screen the angle delineating the hidden area increases.
Session 4: Mathematics session
This session was a traditional mathematics lesson about the concept of angle. In accordance with official curriculum
instructions (BOEN, 2007), no formal definition of “angle” was given. The teacher gives an angle copying exercise and
asks the pupils to devise the techniques for comparing and reproducing angles in order to introduce any techniques not
spontaneously mentioned during the comparison of the hidden areas. In particular he proposes the bevel square (two
cardboard strips articulated at one end) and he uses it to introduce some vocabulary (acute, obtuse and flat angles), and to
launch a discussion about the existence of two angles for a pair of half-lines (a salient angle and a reflex angle).
This session ended with various drawings and comparison exercises (using templates, tracing paper or bevel-square)
which confront pupils with equal angles with sides of different length, smaller angles with longer sides, etc.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative analysis

In this part we describe and analyze the unfolding of the teaching sequence.
Session 1: Elaborating the problem “What can you see when there’s an obstacle in front of you?”, setting hypotheses
The picture of the road-safety scene showed children crossing a road at a place where a bus was blocking their view (see
children number 3 and 5 in Fig. 1). Pupils were asked to decide if these children were in danger when crossing the road, and
why. Each pupil stated his/her point of view: certain pupils thought that children number 3 and 5 were in danger because
either they could not see the minibus coming or the driver of the minibus could not see them. However, other students had
a different opinion. A class discussion led to the expected question “to decide if these children are in danger we must answer
the question: What can we see when we are standing in front of an obstacle?” The teacher then proposed the exercises
where the pupils had to color in the area that the child couldn’t see. This modelization of the situation seen from above is
easily understood by all the pupils who made several conjectures (see examples Fig. 2).
Some children answered correctly, some thought the child could not see the strip perpendicular to the screen (“strip
conjecture”), others drew oblique lines that went through the end points of the screen but did not go through the observer
(“oblique conjecture”). The various solutions proposed were put up on the board and a debate was organized. The pupils
were unable to come to an agreement, so the teacher asked them to think about ways to check their conjectures. The children
quickly proposed an experimental verification on the playground.
Session 2: Experimenting in the playground

Fig. 2. Pupils’ initial conjectures.


8 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

This experiment takes place as expected. The observer sat on a chair in front of the screen located on the right bisector
of the screen. The other pupils were behind the screen. For this first step, the teacher asked the pupils to line up, close to
the right bisector. They were carrying boundary markers (see Photos 1–3) and walked out from behind the screen in either
directions (in parallel with the screen) until the observing pupil could see them on the right or on the left of the screen. As
soon as the observer signaled that a pupil was visible, the pupil put his/her boundary marker on the ground.

Then the whole class came over to observe the locations of the boundary markers. Pupils saw that these boundary markers
formed two straight lines one on each side of the screen and that the lines were oblique, which allowed them to rule out the
strip hypothesis. They checked the alignment by connecting the markers with ropes. Next, the teacher asked them if they
could have predicted the locations of the boundary markers. One pupil recalled the two other hypotheses, and the pupils
verified that the lines crossed each other at the observer. After that, the teacher asked the pupils whether, for the same
observer location, they could have stood farther apart in the line behind the screen, and if so, how far back. Some children
said that the line could extend beyond the ropes, but not everyone was sure of this.
In the static version of the sequence, this procedure was repeated three times for the same observer location, with three
different rope lengths in order to invalidate the side length role. In the dynamic version, the same procedure was followed
(one position of the observer and ropes of different lengths) and two different observer locations were added (still on the
right bisector of the screen) in such a way that the angle changed (see Fig. 3). The pupils could see whether the hidden area
increased or decreased as the observer moved farther away from or closer to the screen.
At the end of this session (in both versions), the teacher asked the children to show with gestures the shape of the hidden
area, so pupils formed with their arms the angle delimiting this area. In the dynamic version they opened or closed their two
straightened arms in front of them to mime the variations of the hidden area when the observer moved toward or away from
the screen. We can note that not only did the pupils mime the angles corresponding to the observer’s successive positions
but also the way the angle was varying continuously when the observer moved, which underlines its dynamic aspect. In the
static version children also mime the form of the hidden area with their arms, but without opening or closing them because
the angle does not vary.
In the two versions the teacher asked the pupils if the ropes could be extended and how far they could go. They replied
“Yes, they can, as far as one can see, all the way to the horizon . . .” Finally when the teacher asked them to verbally describe
the limits of this area the pupils noticed that the boundaries of the visible area were two straight, oblique lines that started
at the observer, passed through both ends of the screen, and continued on indefinitely.
Back in the classroom, most of the pupils colored correctly the hidden area in the four diagrams of various sizes and
observer’ locations (see Fig. 4).
Session 3: Emergence of the concept of angle as a delineator of the hidden area, devising techniques, and using tools to compare
angles
When the teacher put up the enlarged version of the diagrams obtained at the end of the previous session (without the
boxes) and asked them to compare the first two diagrams, some pupils thought the hidden area would be the same. However,
not all the pupils agreed. For some children, the fact that the colored area was bigger or smaller in the different instances
meant that the hidden area changed in size: “the right area is largest because it is more colored,” whereas others thought that
the boundaries could be extended as far as wished, and thus that the visible area was the same: “No, it is the same because
there is just a bigger frame, if we continue the smallest one, it is the same as the biggest one.” These pupils were then able to
make links between areas drawn out on the sheet of paper (micro-space) and the areas of the meso-space that they model:
they compared not the colored areas but the hidden areas which they model. It is the confrontation of their modelizations
of the situation which leads children to abandon their misconceptions, favoring the change of their angle conceptions, as
seen in the previous exchanges.
Then the teacher gave each pupil the set of diagrams with sides of different lengths, and asked pupils to think up a
technique for finding out if the area was the same. Various comparison tools were proposed by the pupils. Some pupils took
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 9

Fig. 3. Diagrams of the static situation (a and b: same observer location with ropes of different lengths) and the dynamic situation (different observer
locations).

their graduated ruler to measure the lengths of the sides. When some pupils measured ropes, the others reacted: “that is of
no use because we can extend the ropes to the infinity.”
Other pupils superimposed the two diagrams against a window pane and looked through the paper. Others cut on colored
zone and used it as a template. The teacher handed out tracing paper to all pupils, who easily verified that the hidden areas
were in fact superimposed. This led them to the conclusion that the hidden area was the same for a given observer position,
no matter how long the ropes were. In the dynamic version, the comparison with the two other diagrams (two different
positions of the observer) lead to the conclusion that in this case the limits of the colored zones are not superimposed and
that the hidden area are different.
When the teacher asked “What determines the edges of the hidden area?” most of the pupils replied “a triangle” or a
“V-shape” to describe the two oblique lines starting from the observer. Finally, the term “angle” was brought up. The pupils
concluded that the hidden area was delineated by an angle and that this angle was the same for a given observer location,
even if the sides had different lengths. In the dynamic version, the teacher had the pupils use the term “angle” to verbally
describe what happened when the observer moved toward or away from the screen: the nearer one moves toward the
screen, the larger become the angle that limits the zone.
Session 4: Mathematics session
The teacher introduced some geometry vocabulary (angle, vertex and sides): “We have seen that the edges of the hidden
area were determined by an angle whose vertex was the observer and whose sides went through the ends of the screen.”
Then he demonstrated various kinds of angles (salient, reflex, 180◦ , etc.) using an abstract angle model (Fig. 5) and a class
discussion was held. When the teacher moved apart the arms of the bevel square until position 2 (right angle) the pupils
easily recognized this well-known angle. Then the teacher introduced the notion of “acute angle” (position 1) as being
smaller than the right angle and the notion of “obtuse angle” (position 3) as being larger. When the angle reached 180◦ ,
some pupils said that “there is no more angle” or “the angle disappeared”. Others said: “When you open it up, there’s still
an angle.” A debate ensued, after which the teacher confirmed that the angle still existed and was called a flat angle. When
the angle was greater than 180◦ , some pupils said “now it’s underneath”, considering only the salient angle. This launched
a discussion and led to the conclusion that for two half lines, there are two angles, an open one and a closed one (inner and
10 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

Fig. 4. Example of pupils’ productions after the playground experiment.

outer angles: salient and reflex). The pupils concluded that it was necessary to mark angles in order to distinguish the salient
angle from the reflex one. This session ended with various drawings and comparison exercises (using templates, tracing
paper or bevel-square), which brought the lesson back to certain difficult aspects of the angle concept, such as: “the length
of the arms is not an estimate of angle size,” “the relevant dimension is the relative slant of the arms,” and “for two given
straight lines, there are two angles, a salient one and a reflex one.”
All along this session the link was spontaneously made by the pupils with the playground situation: “The ‘closed’ angle
is the area that cannot be seen (except for the small triangle in front) and the ‘open’ angle is the part that can be seen.”
During the reproduction exercise, when some pupils asked if they had to draw an angle with the same side lengths, others
answered that side length was unimportant, mentioning the ropes of the playground experiment. Pupils thus created an
empirical referent which they mobilized during the paper and pencil tasks.

2
3
1
4

5
Fig. 5. Bevel-square used as a model for the dynamic angle.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 11

Table 1
Categories and examples of pupils’ productions on the drawing task.

Category Examples

No answer
Failure
Line

Figure

Right angle (prototypical angle)


Success

Angle

Table 2
Examples of highly contrasted productions on the two tasks.

Task 1: Angle drawing Task 2: Angle variations

Item 1: Different Item 2: Another different Item 3: Larger Item 4: Smaller

Failure on the
variation task
(Theo Grade 3)

Successa (Chloe
Grade 4)

a
It should be noted that the success could start from an right angle in task 1.

3.2. Quantitative analysis

A first analysis yielded no significant difference between Grades 3 and 4, so the data was regrouped across school grades.

3.2.1. Scoring
On both the pre- and post-tests, the scoring pertained to (1) the ability to draw an angle, and (2) the ability to produce
variations of that angle. Progress (measured by the change in the before-after success rate) was analyzed using the McNemar’s
test for repeated dichotomous variables.
For the first task (drawing an angle), the drawings produced were assigned to one of three categories: (1) “failure” when
the pupil answered “I don’t know” or simply drew a line or a geometric figure, (2) “right angle” when the pupil drew a right
angle or a (closed or open) geometric figure with the angle labeled in the traditional way (with a little “L” at the angle),
and (3) “angle” when the pupil drew an acute or obtuse angle. These categories are illustrated in Table 1. Only the last two
response categories corresponded to success on this task.
For the second task (angle variations), each angle produced was compared on openness (in degrees), side length (in cm),
and orientation to the first angle the child drew. The judge method was used to score the drawings. Computed on the entire
drawings set (pre- and post-tests), the inter judge agreement was 93.35%, and the Kappa coefficient for inter rater reliability
was .95, p < .01. Error tolerance was set at ±5◦ for openness and ±.5 cm for side length. For Items 1 and 2 (draw a different
angle, draw another different angle), variations bearing on the openness of the angle, whether or not they were associated
with variations on the other dimensions, were considered successful. For Items 3 and 4 involving an increase or decrease in
angle size (draw a larger angle, draw a smaller angle), a production was counted as successful when the angle’s openness
was changed in the requested direction. The scores on this task ranged from 0 to 4 (number of successful variations).
Table 2 presents two examples of highly contrasted productions on the two tasks. One pupil (Theo, Grade 3) produced
a right angle on the first task, but failed the second task because he only changed the orientation of Items 1 and 2 and only
the side length of Items 3 and 4. Another pupil (Chloe, Grade 4) succeeded in both tasks.
12 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

3.2.2. Did pupils benefit from the teaching sequence?


In order to determine whether the pupils had progressed after the teaching sequence, we looked at how their angle-
drawing and angle-variation performance evolved between the pre- and post-tests.

3.2.2.1. Progress on angle drawing. Table 3 indicates changes in angle-drawing performance between the pre- and post-tests
for the three groups (static, dynamic, control). It thus shows whether progress was made by the pupils after the teaching
sequence.
First of all, it should be noted that the three groups performed equally on the angle-drawing pre-test: 22 successes
versus 8 failures in the static condition, 16 successes versus 14 failures in the dynamic condition, and 23 successes versus 7
failures for the control group. These differences were not significant (static/dynamic 2 (1) = 2.58, p > .05; dynamic/control
2 (1) = 3.58, p > .05 and static/control 2 (1) = .9, p > .05). It is also of note that when an angle was produced on the pre-test,
it was almost always a right angle. In the static condition, every angle drawn was a right angle; in the dynamic condition,
most of the drawings (12 out of 16) were right angles (binomial test for N = 16 and x = 4, p = .038); for the control group 17
out of 23 were right angles (binomial test for N = 23 and x = 6, p = .017).
Concerning progress made between the pre- and post-tests, we can see that both experimental groups did better after
the teaching sequence (PRA + NPA) than before (McNemar’s test: 2 (1) = 4, p < .05, for static and 2 (1) = 4.45 for dynamic,
p < .05). So the pupils did progress whereas it is not the case for the control group (McNemar’s test: 2 (1) = .33, p > .05).
Finally, if we look at the types of angles drawn by the pupils, the right angles (PRA) outnumbered the others (NPA) before
the teaching sequences (22 PRA in static condition, 12 in dynamic one and 17 in the control group were produced, versus
only 4 NPA in dynamic condition and 2 in the control group). After the sequences, the frequency of right angles dropped
significantly in experimental groups: only 30 (20 in static condition and 10 in dynamic one) out of the 49 angles drawn were
right angles (2 (1) = 2.46, p > .05). On the contrary, in the control group, right angles remain numerous (binomial test for
N = 24 and x = 5, p = .003).
Thus, not only did the static and dynamic sequences help some pupils progress (more pupils managed to draw an angle
after the sequences) but they also reduced the salience of the right angle even if they had not been designed for this purpose:

Table 3
Number of pupils (N = 30 per sequence) who failed or succeeded at drawing an angle on the pre- and post-tests, in the experimental groups (static and
dynamic sequences) and in the control group.

Angle drawing Post-test

Static sequence Dynamic sequence Control group

Pre-test Failure PRA NPA Total Failure PRA NPA Total Failure PRA NPA Total

Failure 4 3 1 8 5 3 6 14 5 1 1 7
PRAa – 17 5 22 2 6 4 12 – 15 2 17
NPAb – – – – – 1 3 4 1 3 2 6
Total 4 20 6 30 7 10 13 30 6 19 5 30
a
Prototypical right angle.
b
Non-prototypical angle pupils who did not change performance categories between the pre- and post-tests are on the diagonal (gray cells). Pupils who
progressed are above the diagonal.

Control group
30
28
26
24
22
number of pupils

20
18
16 Pre test
14 post test
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Failure PRA NPA
performance

Fig. 6. Pupils’ performance (failure, prototypical right angle and non prototypical angle) on the pre- and post-tests in the control group.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 13

Static Group
30
28
26
24
22

Number of pupils 20
18
16 Pre-test
14 Post-test
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Failure PRA NPA
Performance

Fig. 7. Pupils’ performance (failure, prototypical right angle and non prototypical angle) on the pre- and post-tests in the static group.

Dynamic group
30
28
26
24
22
Number of pupils

20
18
16 Pre-test

14 Post-test

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Failure PRA NPA

Performance

Fig. 8. Pupils’ performance (failure, prototypical right angle and non prototypical angle) on the pre- and post-tests in the dynamic group.

nearly a third of the pupils spontaneously went on to other angles even though they were not asked to do so (19 pupils out
of 49).
What about the superiority of the dynamic version? Figs. 6–8, which present the results of Table 3 in an alternative way,
show a difference between both control and static groups and the dynamic group on the progression from pre- to post-
tests: the shapes of pre- and post-results are very similar for control and static groups across the three categories (failure,
prototypical and non-prototypical), whereas, for the dynamic group the trends among the three categories are actually
reversed when comparing pre- and post-results.

3.2.2.2. Progress on angle variations. Table 4 shows how angle-variation performance (“draw a different angle, another
different angle, a larger angle and a smaller angle”) evolved between the pre- and post-tests (recall that the number of
successful variations ranged from 0 to 4).
On the pre-test, the pupils who succeeded in at least one variation were in the minority in all the three groups (3 out
of 30 for the static sequence, 8 out of 30 for the dynamic sequence and 9 out of 30 for the control group) and there is no
significant difference from one group to another.
Concerning the pupils’ progress, Table 4 shows that more than a third of the pupils progressed in the three groups (static
and control group both had 11 out of 30 pupils, dynamic group had 14 out of 30). Among those pupils who did not perform
equally on the pre- and post-tests, scores rose significantly more often than they declined (McNemar’s test: 2 (1) = 8.33,
p < .05 for the static sequence, 2 (1) = 11.27, p < .05 for the dynamic sequence, 2 (1) = 6.23, p < .05 for the control group). A
14 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

Table 4
Number of pupils (N = 30 per sequence) who obtained each score on the angle-variation task of the pre- and post-tests, in the experimental groups (static
and dynamic sequences) and in the control group.

Pre-test Post-test

Static sequence Dynamic sequence Control group

Angle-variation score 0 1 2 3 4 Total 0 1 2 3 4 Total 0 1 2 3 4 Total

0 17 – 2 6 2 27 12 4 3 3 – 22 15 – 3 2 1 21
1 – – 1 – – 1 – – 2 1 – 3 1 1 4 – – 6
2 – 1 – – – 1 – – 1 – 1 2 – – 1 1 – 2
3 – – – 1 – 1 1 – – 1 – 2 – – 1 – – 1
4 – – – – – – – – – – 1 1 – – – – – –
Total 17 1 3 7 2 30 13 4 6 5 2 30 16 1 9 3 1 30

Pupils who did not change performance categories between the pre- and post-tests are on the diagonal (gray cells). Pupils who progressed are above the
diagonal.

great number of pupils thus changed the openness of the angle. However, since angle size was not the sole dimension of the
drawings that could be changed, a finer analysis of the pupils’ drawings was necessary.

3.2.3. Analysis of how the children changed their angle drawings


Three dimensions could be modified by the pupils: openness, side length, and orientation. Let us recall that so far, all the
answers where the angle’s openness had been changed were scored as successful, whether or not another dimension was
also modified. In this part we do not question the impact of the teaching sequences but we are focusing on the dimensions
modified by the pupils. Therefore the results of both experimental groups are combined in the analysis which follows.
Only the responses of pupils who drew at least one angle on the post-test were analyzed. The results are reported in
Tables 5a and 5b. Table 5a pertains to the first-different-angle item and the second-different-angle item, and Table 5b
pertains to the larger-angle and smaller-angle items, which means that a given pupil is counted twice in each table since
he answered two items. In these tables, pupils who managed to correctly change the angle are separated from those who
failed to do so. We classified the responses in 4 independent categories defined below.

SL: children modified only the side length


OR: children modified only the orientation
SL + OR: children modified both the side length and the orientation
SL and OR unchanged: children modified neither the side length nor the orientation

We considered that children modified the side length when this modification was really significant, more than 30% of
variation (see for example Theo in Table 2) and clearly deliberate (really longer sides for the larger angle and really shorter
sides for the smaller one).

Table 5a
Distribution of pupils’ drawings according to the other dimensions that could be changed, on the first-different-angle and second-different-angle test items
(N = 43a in Experimental groups and Na = 22 in the Control group).

Dimensions Pupils who failed in changing angle size Pupils who succeeded in changing angle size

Experimental groups Control Group Experimental groups Control Group

SL 3 2 4 –
OR 14 4 23 12
SL + OR 7 3 7 8
SL and OR unchanged 8 6 18 5
a
The total number of pupils differs because not all pupils answered every item.

Table 5b
Distribution of pupils’ drawings according to the other dimensions that could be changed, on the larger-angle and smaller-angle test items (N = 45a in
Experimental groups and Na = 23 in the Control group).

Dimensions Pupils who failed in changing angle size Pupils who succeeded in changing angle size

Experimental groups Control group Experimental groups Control group

SL 27 27 18 3
OR 1 – 3 –
SL + OR 16 4 9 6
SL and OR unchanged 4 – 12 2
a
The total number of pupils differs because not all pupils answered every item.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 15

Examining Tables 5a and 5b for experimental groups, we can see that the instructions had a clear-cut effect on what the
children changed in their drawings. For the items “draw a different angle” and “draw another different angle,” side length
was changed in 21 responses out of 86 (row SL plus row SL + OR), versus 51 orientation changes (row OR plus row SL + OR),
and 14 responses with changes in both dimensions (row SL + OR). For the items “draw a larger angle” and “draw a smaller
angle,” side length was changed in 70 responses out of 90 (row SL plus row SL + OR), orientation was changed in 29 responses
(row OR plus row SL + OR), and both dimensions were changed in 25 drawings (row SL + OR). Thus, no matter how good they
were at varying angle size, the children were more inclined to change the length of the sides when the term “larger” or
“smaller” was used, and they had a greater tendency to orient their drawing in a different way when the instructions were
“draw a different angle.”
Looking solely at those pupils who managed to change the angle size on the larger/smaller items – which were the most
demanding items because they required a particular type of change (Table 5b) – we find that in 27 out of 42 drawings, side
length was changed in addition to openness. This means that success was not yet completely independent of side length.
The results for the control group lead to the same conclusions.

3.2.4. Relationship between producing prototypical right angles and angle variation ability
In this part we address our second research question about the links between the side-length obstacle and the salience
of the right angle obstacle. In this purpose we relate the types of angles produced by the pupils to their ability to change
angle size. We must recall that for both the pre- and post-tests, the pupils could succeed or fail on the first task involving
drawing any angle (a right angle or any other angle) and could succeed or fail on the second task involving varying the size
of that angle (provided, of course, that they managed to draw an angle on the first task).
There were five possible categories of pupils: (A) pupils who neither drew an angle nor changed angle size, (B) pupils
who produced a right angle but were unable to change it, (C) pupils who produced a right angle and managed to change its
size at least once, (D) pupils who produced another type of angle but were unable to change it, and (E) pupils who produced
another type of angle and were able to change its size at least once.
Table 6 presents the number of pupils in each category before and after the teaching sequences. As we are not concerned
here with the impact of the teaching sequences but are focusing instead on the relationship between producing prototypical
right angles and angle variation ability, we have combined the results of both experimental groups.
In Table 6, if we consider first the results of the pupils from the experimental groups, we can note that among the 24
pupils who failed on both pre-test tasks (row A), 11 remained in the same performance category (cell AA) and 13 progressed,
either in drawing only (cell AB: N = 2, cell AD: N = 1) or in drawing and varying (cell AC: N = 4, cell AE: N = 6). In the control
group, 7 pupils failed on both pre-test tasks among whom 5 stayed in the same category and 2 progressed.
In the experimental groups, among the 25 pupils who produced a right angle on the pre-test without being able to change
that angle (row B), 15 stayed at the same performance level (cell BB) and 10 progressed, either by succeeding in at least one
variation (cell BC: N = 6) or in producing a non-right angle that they managed to change (cell BE: N = 4). In the control group,
there were 13 pupils who produced a right angle on the pre-test without being able to change that angle among whom 9

Table 6
Number of pupils (N = 90) who failed or succeeded in the angle-drawing and angle-variation tasks on the pre- and post-tests in experimental groups (all
sequences pooled) and in the control group.

Pre-test Post-test

Experimental groups Control group

A B C D E Total A B C D E Total

A. Failure in the drawing 11 2 4 1 6 24 5 1 – – 1 7


and variation tasks
B. Success in drawing a 15 6 4 25 – 9 2 – 2 13
prototypical right angle
and failure in the
variation task
C. Success in drawing a 2 5 7 – – 4 – – 4
prototypical right angle
and success in
introducing at least one
variation
D. Success in drawing a – – – – – – 1 1
non-prototypical angle
and failure in the
variation task
E. Success in drawing a 1 3 4 1 – 3 – 1 5
non-prototypical angle
and success in
introducing at least one
variation

Pupils who did not change performance categories between the pre- and post-tests are on the diagonal (gray cells).
16 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

stayed at the same performance level and 4 progressed (2 succeeding in at least one variation and 2 producing a non-right
angle that they managed to change).
The right-angle prototype therefore seems to be very difficult to overcome: on the post-test, in the experimental groups,
only 6 out of the 21 “right-angle” pupils managed to change the angle’s size (binomial test for N = 21 and x = 6: p = .039). In the
control group, there were only 2 out of the 11 able to overcome the right angle (binomial test for N = 11 and x = 2: p = .033).
Pupils from the experimental groups who were able to produce at least one variation on the pre-test (rows C and E)
remained in this category, except for one pupil whose performance declined (cell ED). In the control group, the results were
the same, however with more “regressions” (cells EA and EC sum 4 pupils).
It is to be noted that, in the experimental groups, whenever a non-right angle was produced, whether on the pre- or post-
test, it was almost always (4 out of 4 cases and 18 out of 20 cases respectively) accompanied by successful angle variation.
It is also the case in the control group (5 out of 6 cases and all the 6 cases respectively). Thus, as soon as the pupils were
able to get past the right-angle prototype, they were nearly always able to vary the angle’s size, i.e., to change its openness,
which was our criterion of success. However, let us recall that a closer look at the pupils’ productions indicated that they
also modified other dimensions of their drawings (orientation, side length) and the discussion will develop this analysis.

4. Discussion

The present study deals with the difficulties encountered by schoolchildren in acquiring the concept of angle. One of the
aims of this study was to determine the extent to which a teaching sequence based on a concrete situation in the meso-
space can enable third and fourth graders to progress in their conceptualization of angles. Our hypothesis was that using
a concrete situation based on the idea of infinite directions would help pupils get beyond the length-of-sides obstacle and
would thereby promote the acquisition of the concept.
The results suggested that the teaching sequence helped the pupils progress, since more pupils succeeded on the angle-
drawing task after the sequence than before, whereas it is not the case for the control group. Both versions of the teaching
sequence had an impact on the angle-variation task too: more pupils were able to correctly change the size of the angle
on the post-test than on the pre-test – about half of the pupils made progress here. For this task, progress achieved by the
control group is nearly the same as for the experimental groups. It is of note however, that more pupils in the experimental
groups were able to overcome the right angle prototype than the subjects in the control group. So we can conclude that
there is a superiority of the experimental sequence to the standard sequence, at least for a part of the tasks.
The pupils’ behavior during the sequence shows that the physical situation proposed enabled the pupils to invalidate the
role of the side length. In the playground, pupils used ropes of different lengths. The comparison of their modelizations with
these different ropes for a given position of the observer led to a debate which allowed them to grasp the angle concept.
In the classroom, the problem of the sides’ lengths was always spontaneously brought up by the pupils, no matter what
technique was used to compare or reproduce angles. This obstacle was overcome by going back to the physical situation
as suggested by their verbalizations. In this way, the pupils’ first contact with the concept of angle did not take place in a
primitive, schoolbook type of situation. This situation supplies the pupils with an empirical referent that enables them to
discard the misconception that lengths are important. This situation makes the concept of angle meaningful. It breaks away
from conventional teaching contexts far-removed from a child’s experience, whereas in the control group “Angle” is directly
introduced as a geometric object.
We also hypothesized that a dynamic presentation of angles, i.e., one involving an angle that varied in size, would be more
effective than a static presentation where the angle remained fixed. As expected, a slight superiority of the dynamic version
was demonstrated for angle drawing (see Figs. 6–8). This difference in the performance between the two sequences can be
explained in several ways. First, in the dynamic sequence the instructions in the playground with the ropes and screen are
different (moving the observer closer or further from the screen vs. remaining in the same place). Moreover, pupils mime the
variations of the hidden area opening or closing their two straightened arms in front of them. Finally during the 3rd session
they had to produce and analyze various modelizations for different locations of the observer (different angles). However, for
the angle-variation task, the two versions of the sequence (static and dynamic) led to comparable proportions of progress.
The superiority of the dynamic version in comparison with the static one is less important than expected. We consider
that this slight difference is due to the fact that, in both versions, the angle appears between two infinite directions, which
explains the efficiency of both versions. Moreover it seems that in our static version a dynamic component was present.
Indeed it is worth noting that in the last session of both versions of the sequence the pupils used a bevel-square (Fig. 5)
the arms of which they opened. It is possible that this manipulation, associated with much work on the length of the sides
during the sequence, suffices to make the pupils understand the dynamic nature of the angle.
Our theoretical analysis also suggests that the length-of-sides obstacle is not the only one which pupils have to face
in their construction of this concept. We have already mentioned the specificities of the French school curriculum which
introduces the right angle in the 1st or 2nd grade i.e. at least two years before real work on the angle concept in grades 3, 4
or 5. Therefore, we hypothesized that the salience of the right-angle prototype, which is useful to differentiate geometrical
shapes, can later become a hindrance to acquiring the concept of angle. Results showed that this prototype was largely
predominant on the pre-test – the majority of the pupils produced a right angle when asked to draw an angle and most of
them were unable to change its size – and was still produced by half of the pupils on the post-test. These findings confirm
the salience of right angles oriented in the standard way.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 17

One question that arises here is whether the right-angle obstacle is ontogenetic or didactic. Several elements of the
literature suggest that the right-angle obstacle is ontogenetic. Right angles are “good” perceptual shapes, particularly when
the arms are vertical and horizontal. In their analysis of the construction of space, Piaget and Inhelder (1956) showed that
right angles predominated in a quasi-systematic way in the drawings of children who had not yet acquired the Euclidean
frame of reference (trees were perpendicular to hillsides, chimneys were perpendicular to roofs, etc.). In a study on the
water-level task, Baldy, Devichi, and Chatillon (2004) recalled that children tend to draw lines perpendicular to other lines.
This trend was called “perceptual-motor response bias” by Sommerville and Cox (1988) and Pascual-Leone and Morra (1991)
or “perpendicular error” by Bremmer and Taylor (1982). From our point of view, this ontogenetic obstacle is intensified by
the teaching methods, thus also becoming a didactic obstacle. Working solely with right angles for two years at least may be
responsible for the weight this angle carries in the early elementary school years. Concerning the length-of-sides obstacle, the
fact that numerous international results point out this misconception, regardless of the age of the pupils and the curriculum,
leads us to believe that this obstacle is ontogenetic, in opposition to Berthelot and Salin (1996) who consider it as a didactic
obstacle. We think this question should be re-considered as it can be, like the right angle, an ontogenetic obstacle reinforced
by education.
Moreover, the results presented here suggest an interrelation between the length-of-sides obstacle and the obstacle of
the right angle as a prototype. Actually an important contribution of our work is that we were able to study the link between
the type of angle produced and the ability to change its size. When a right angle was produced, attempts to change it were
rarely successful on either the pre- or post-test. On the other hand, when the angle spontaneously produced was not a right
angle, the variations were usually successful. It seems, then, that the point in time when pupils overcome the right-angle
obstacle – and are thus able to envisage other types of angles – marks the beginning of grasping “openness” as the relevant
dimension for differentiating various angles from each other (in addition to orientation and side length which they had used
until then). This step allows them to change the size of the angle.
However, it was shown that even those pupils who managed to change the size of the angle they drew, very often also
changed the length of the sides, a fact which suggests that success is still not completely detached from side length. The
visual-field situation and viewing angle we chose were designed to emphasize the fact that the arms of angles are infinitely
long. We therefore expected to find fewer errors consisting in side lengthening or shortening and a greater number of
modifications of openness. Yet our analysis of the pupils’ productions revealed that most of the pupils changed the length
of the sides, especially when they were asked to draw a larger or smaller angle. By contrast, when the instructions were to
draw a “different” angle, the pupils’ preference was to change the angle’s orientation. This was probably due to the fact that
the words used in the instructions to refer to angle size (larger and smaller) are words that pupils are accustomed to hearing
when estimating line segments and measuring lengths. In all likelihood, the pupils transferred their knowledge about line
segments and length measurement (a line segment can be “large” or “small”) to the estimation of angle size. The results of
an ongoing experiment support this interpretation, i.e., that the observed impact of the length-of-sides obstacle is linked to
the fact that the instructions were worded in terms of largeness/smallness. In that experiment, instructions to draw an angle
that was “wider” or “narrower” gave rise to more successes than larger/smaller instructions, at least for the fourth graders
tested. However, we used the terms large/small because they are the ones used in classes and handbooks when pupils are
asked to compare angles. It should be noted that for the comparisons of length and weight, the French language possesses
specific adjectives: long/short, heavy/light in addition to the antonyms small/large. This is not the case for angles.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Limitations of the study

One of the limitations of this study is the number of participants; despite this limited population, the results allow us
to identify pupils’ ways of reasoning: the results of this research provide further insight into the main difficulties facing
elementary school pupils in grasping the concept of angle. We showed that the salience of the prototypical angle – the right
angle – could constitute a learning obstacle, although this pitfall has captured little research interest (most studies have
focused on side length).
Another limitation is that this study has been conducted in France with all the specificities that this implies. It would
be interesting to analyze the link between the type of angle produced and the ability to change its size in countries where
the right angle, the other angles, and the measurement of angles are introduced simultaneously. Is the salience of the right
angle obstacle as important as in France? What is the role of the measurement of angles in the grasp of this concept?
Despite these limitations the present study has some pedagogical implications.

5.2. Implications for learning and instruction in geometry

First, the experiment highlighted that a teacher’s choice of words is critical and can be a source of confusion and difficulty
for pupils. It may be judicious to introduce the terms wider/narrower, at least in the beginning of the study of angles.
This study also showed that production tasks are relevant to identify pupils’ representations of the concept of angle.
Yet these tasks are rarely proposed in the traditional teaching of geometry, which is mainly based on reproduction and
comparison tasks. We can thus recommend to teachers to assign these tasks more frequently and analyze not only a pupil’s
18 C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19

mistakes but also his/her correct answers, for the latter are indicative of each child’s way of thinking and knowledge level.
Actually, in the variation task, the pupils who changed the size of the angle very often also changed the length of the sides.
Thus a successful answer to a question can hide a nonetheless incomplete conceptualization in which the angle size is not
completely detached from side length.
Furthermore, the observed progress of pupils after two sessions suggests that starting from a concrete situation to model
experimenting in the meso-space – where the angle appears between two infinite directions – is efficient. Indeed some
pupils actually overcome the length-of-sides obstacle. We assume that experimenting with ropes of different lengths, and
then modeling the situation by drawing on a sheet of paper are the reasons for this progress. Therefore, we consider that
the sequences elaborated are useful to introduce the angle concept. They enable the pupils not only to acquire geometrical
competences but also to practice modeling activities. Moreover, in the same didactic session, they also build up knowledge
in physics (notion of visual field). Actually, some results not included in this article show that, after the teaching sequence,
70% of the pupils were not only capable of determining the visual field of an observer but also of mastering the functional
relationship between the size of the angle defining the visual field and the location of the observer moving closer to the
screen or farther away from it. Finally our experimentation showed a slight superiority of the dynamic approach, so we can
recommend this version, especially since it is neither longer nor more complicated to design.
Finally, in view of our results, it seems necessary to do specific work on the passage from the right angle to other angles
and to confront pupils with the different variations of the angle, starting from the right angle. Moreover this research showed
that it is possible to profitably teach angles as early as third grade. Would it be possible, then, to introduce this concept in
its general form in second grade without limiting it to the right angle?

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was supported by a French interdisciplinary research program. The authors thank
the colleagues, teachers and children who participated in this study.

References

Aubert, F., Devichi, C., & Baldy, R. (2008). Développement du concept d’angle chez des enfants de huit, neuf et dix ans: approche exploratoire [Development
of angle concept in 8, 9 and 10 years old children: Explorative study]. Archives de Psychologie, 73, 87–101.
Baldy, R., Devichi, C., Aubert, F., Munier, V., Merle, H., Dusseau, J. M., et al. (2005). Développement cognitif et apprentissages scolaires: l’exemple de
l’acquisition du concept d’angle [Cognitive development and learning: Acquisition of the angle concept]. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 152, 49–61.
Baldy, R., Devichi, C., & Chatillon, J. F. (2004). Developmental effects in 2D versus 3D versions in verticality and horizontality tasks. Swiss Journal of Psychology,
63(2), 75–83.
Berthelot, R., & Salin, M. H. (1996). L’enseignement des angles aux élèves de 10 à 13 ans: identification d’un obstacle didactique [Teaching angles to 10–13
years old students: Identification of a didactical obstacle]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 22(2), 417–442.
Berthelot, R., & Salin, M. H. (1998). The role of pupil’s spatial knowledge in the elementary teaching of geometry. In C. Mammana, & V. Villani (Eds.),
Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 71–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
BOEN. (2007). Bulletin Officiel de l’Education Nationale (Official bulletin of national education). No. 5, April 2007, p. 96.
BOEN. (2002). Bulletin Officiel de l’Education Nationale (Official Bulletin of National Education). HS No. 1, February 2002.
Bremmer, J. G., & Taylor, M. (1982). Children’s errors in copying angles: Perpendicular error or bisection error? Perception, 11, 163–171.
Brousseau, G. (1997). (Theory of didactical situations in mathematics) (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, and V. Warfield, Eds. and Trans.). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Browning, C. A., Garza-Kling, G., & Sundling, E. H. (2007). What’s your angle on angles? Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(5), 283–287.
Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards
for school mathematics (pp. 151–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of mathematics.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1989). Learning of geometric concepts in a Logo environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 450–467.
Clements, D. H., & Burns, B. A. (2000). Students’ development of strategies for turn and angle measure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 31–45.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1995). Design of a logo environment for elementary geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 381–398.
Close, G. S. (1982). Students’ understanding of angle at the elementary/secondary transfer stage. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Polytechnic of the South Bank,
London (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 383).
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fyhn, A. B. (2006). A climbing girl’s reflections about angles. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 25, 91–102.
Fyhn, A. B. (2008). A climbing class’ reinvention of angles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 19–35.
Healy, L., Hoyles, C., & Laborde, J. M. (2001). Teaching and learning dynamic geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3),
229–233.
Henderson, D. W., & Taimina, D. (2005). Experiencing geometry. Euclidean and non-Euclidean with history. New York: Cornell University.
Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). Learning mathematics and logo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310.
Keiser, J. M. (2004). Struggles with developing the concept of angle: Comparing sixth-grade students’ discourse to the history of the angle concept.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 285–306.
Kieren, C. (1986). Turns and angles: What develops in Logo? In G. Lappan, & R. Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the North American
chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 169–177). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Kynigos, C., Psycharis, G., & Latsi, M. (2009). Meanings for angle through geometrical constructions in 3D space. In Proceedings of the 33rd conference of
international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 457–464). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal study of children’s reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing
learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 137–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Masuda, Y. (2009). Exploring students’ understanding of angle measure. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd
conference of international group for the psychology of mathematics education (p. 424). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Merle, H., & Munier, V. (2003). Merle, Comment conceptualiser la hauteur du Soleil en tant qu’angle au cycle 3? Aster, 36, 39–68.
C. Devichi, V. Munier / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 32 (2013) 1–19 19

Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Children’s informal knowledge of physical angle situations. Learning and Instruction, 7, 1–19.
Mitchelmore, M. (1998). Young students’ concepts of turning and angle. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 265–284.
Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (1998). Development of angle concepts: A framework for research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(3), 4–27.
Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (2000). Development of angle concepts by progressive abstraction and generalisation. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
41(3), 209–238.
Munier, V., & Merle, H. (2009). Interdisciplinary mathematics–physics approaches to teaching the concept of angle in elementary school. International
Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1857–1895.
Noss, R. (1987). Children’s learning of geometrical concepts through LOGO. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 343–362.
Outhred, L. (1987). Left angle or right angle: Children’s misconceptions of angle. Research in Mathematics Education in Australia, 41–47.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Morra, S. (1991). Horizontality of water level: A neo-piagetian developmental review. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development
and behavior (pp. 231–276).
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child’s conception of geometry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
Simmons, M., & Cope, P. (1993). Angle and rotation: Effects of different types of feedback on the quality of response. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
24(2), 163–176.
Sommerville, D., & Cox, M. V. (1988). Sources of error in the Piagetian water-level task. Perception, 17, 249–254.
Vadcard, L. (2002). Conceptions of the angle among tenth grade students. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 22(1), 77–119.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on
percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9–35.
Van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic Press.
White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2010). Teaching for abstraction: A model. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(3), 205–226.
Wilson, P. S., & Adams, V. M. (1992). A dynamic way to teach angle and angle measure. Arithmetic Teacher, 39(5), 6–13.

You might also like