TUTORING RESOURCES

Become a Student

Sign In

Search 79,668 tutors

Answers

Blogs

Files

Lessons

Videos

Resources / Lessons / Math / Geometry / Quadrilaterals / Properties of Parallelogr...

Lessons
GO

Properties of Parallelograms
The broadest term we've used to describe any kind of shape is "polygon." When we
discussedquadrilaterals in the last section, we essentially just specified that they were polygons with
four vertices and four sides. Still, we will get more specific in this section and discuss a special type of
quadrilateral: the parallelogram. Before we do this, however, let's go over some definitions that will
help us describe different parts of quadrilaterals.
Quadrilateral Terminology
Since this entire section is dedicated to the study of quadrilaterals, we will use some terminology that
will help us describe specific pairs of lines, angles, and vertices of quadrilaterals. Let's study these
terms now.
Consecutive Angles

Two angles whose vertices are the endpoints of the same side are called consecutive angles.

?Q and ?R are consecutive angles because Q and R are the endpoints of the same side.
Opposite Angles

Two angles that are not consecutive are called opposite angles.

?Q and ?S are opposite angles because they are not endpoints of a common side.
Consecutive Sides

Two sides of a quadrilateral that meet are called consecutive sides.

QR and RS are consecutive sides because they meet at point R.

Opposite Sides

Two sides that are not consecutive are called opposite sides.

QR and TS are opposite sides of the quadrilateral because they do not meet.
Now, that we understand what these terms refer to, we are ready to begin our lesson on
parallelograms.
Properties of Parallelograms: Sides and Angles
A parallelogram is a type of quadrilateral whose pairs of opposite sides are parallel.

Quadrilateral ABCD is a parallelogram because AB?DC and AD?BC.

Although the defining characteristics of parallelograms are their pairs of parallel opposite sides, there
are other ways we can determine whether a quadrilateral is a parallelogram. We will use these
properties in our two-column geometric proofs to help us deduce helpful information.
If a quadrilateral is a parallelogram, then.
(1) its opposite sides are congruent,
(2) its opposite angles are congruent, and
(2) its consecutive angles are supplementary.
Another important property worth noticing about parallelograms is that if one angle of the
parallelogram is a right angle, then they all are right angles. Why is this property true? Let's examine
this situation closely. Consider the figure below.

Given that ?J is a right angle, we can also determine that ?L is a right angle since the opposite sides
of parallelograms are congruent. Together, the sum of the measure of those angles is180 because

We also know that the remaining angles must be congruent because they are also opposite angles.
By the Polygon Interior Angles Sum Theorem, we know that all quadrilaterals have angle
measures that add up to 360. Since ?J and ?L sum up to 180, we know that the sum of ?Kand ?M will
also be 180:

Since ?K and ?M are congruent, we can define their measures with the same variable, x. So we have

Therefore, we know that ?K and ?M are both right angles. Our final illustration is shown below.

Let's work on a couple of exercises to practice using the side and angle properties of parallelograms.
Exercise 1

Given that QRST is a parallelogram, find the values of x and y in the diagram below.

Solution:
After examining the diagram, we realize that it will be easier to solve for x first because y is used in
the same expression as x (in ?R), but x is by itself at segment QR. Since opposite sides of
parallelograms are congruent, we have can set the quantities equal to each other and solve for x:

Now that we've determined that the value of x is 7, we can use this to plug into the expression given
in ?R. We know that ?R and ?T are congruent, so we have

Substitute x for 7 and we get

So, we've determined that x=7 and y=8.

Exercise 2

Given that EDYF is a parallelogram, determine the values of x and y.

Solution:
In order to solve this problem, we will need to use the fact that consecutive angles of parallelograms
are supplementary. The only angle we can figure out initially is the one at vertex Y because all it
requires is the addition of angles. We have

Knowing that ?Y has a measure of 115 will allow us to solve for x and y since they are both found in
angles consecutive to ?Y. Let's solve for y first. We have

All that is left for solve for is x now. We will use the same method we used when solving for y:

So, we have x=10 and y=13.

The sides and angles of parallelograms aren't their only unique characteristics. Let's learn some more
defining properties of parallelograms.
Properties of Parallelograms: Diagonals
When we refer to the diagonals of a parallelogram, we are talking about lines that can be drawn
from vertices that are not connected by line segments. Every parallelogram will have only two
diagonals. An illustration of a parallelogram's diagonals is shown below.

We have two important properties that involve the diagonals of parallelograms.

If a quadrilateral is a parallelogram, then.
(1) its diagonals bisect each other, and
(2) each diagonal splits the parallelogram into two congruent triangles.

Segments AE and CE are congruent to each other because the diagonals meet at point E, which
bisects them. Segments BE and DE are also congruent.

The two diagonals split the parallelogram up into congruent triangles.

Let's use these properties for solve the following exercises.
Exercise 3

Given that ABCD is a parallelogram, find the value of x.

Solution:
We know that the diagonals of parallelograms bisect each other. This means that the point Esplits up
each bisector into two equivalent segments. Thus, we know that DE and BE are congruent, so we
have

So, the value of x is 3.

Exercise 4

Given that FGHI is a parallelogram, find the values of x and y.

Let's try to solve for x first. We are given that ?FHI is a right angle, so it has a measure of 90. We
can deduce that ?HFG is also a right angle by the Alternate Interior Angles Theorem.
If we look at ?HIJ, we notice that two of its angles are congruent, so it is an isosceles triangle. This
means that ?HIJ has a measure of 9x since ?IJH has that measure.
We can use the fact that the triangle has a right angle and that there are two congruent angles in it,
in order to solve for x. We will use the Triangle Angle Sum Theorem to show that the angles must
add up to 180.

Now, let's solve for y. We know that segments IJ and GJ are congruent because they are bisected by
the opposite diagonal. Therefore, we can set them equal to each other.

Because we can say that IJ and GJ are congruent, we have

So, our answers are x=5 and y=4.

<< Prev (Polygons)
Next (Proving Parallelograms) >>
GeometryQuadrilateralParallelograms
Mark favorite

Related Answers
Parallelograms - quadrilateralParallelogramsParallelogramsParallelograms
Related Blogs
PSAT, SAT, & ACT Math Summer WorkshopPractice Regents Exams with AnswersEllen's Choice: RealWorld GeometryALL MY GRADE 8 & 9 STUDENTS PASSED THE ALGEBRA CORE REGENTS EXAM
Related Lessons
PolygonsProving Quadrilaterals Are ParallelogramsProperties of Trapezoids and Kites
MATH

o
o
o
o

o
o

Elementary Math
Prealgebra
Algebra
Geometry
Introduction
Lines and Angles
Triangles
Quadrilaterals
Polygons
Properties of Parallelograms
Proving Parallelograms
Rectangles, Rhombuses, and Squares
Trapezoids and Kites
Areas
Geometry Tutors
Trigonometry
Precalculus
Calculus
Statistics and Probability

OTHER CATEGORIES
ENGLISH
ACCOUNTING
HISTORY
SCIENCE
SPANISH
STUDY SKILLS
TEST PREP

Find a tutor fast. Get the app.

Send a download link to your phone.

Send Text

Message and data rates may apply.

App Store Google Play

Are you a tutor? Get the app for tutors
Need help finding a tutor?
Request a tutor Call us (877) 999-2681

https://www.wyzant.com/tutorhomeAbout UsReviews & TestimonialsSafetySecurityNewsContact UsWyzAnt StoreSearch for

a TutorRequest a TutorMath HelpWyzAnt ResourcesWyzAnt ScholarshipsOnline TutoringAbout Tutoring with UsBecome a TutorTutoring
JobsPartnersAffiliatesCareersAtlanta TutorsBoston TutorsBrooklyn TutorsChicago TutorsDallas TutorsDenver TutorsDetroit TutorsHouston
TutorsLos Angeles TutorsMiami TutorsNew York City TutorsOrange County TutorsPhiladelphia TutorsPhoenix TutorsSan Francisco TutorsSeattle
TutorsSan Diego TutorsWashington, DC TutorsAlgebra TutorsCalculus TutorsChemistry TutorsComputer LessonsElementary TutorsEnglish
TutorsGeometry TutorsLanguage TutorsMath TutorsMusic LessonsPhysics TutorsReading TutorsSAT TutorsScience TutorsSpanish TutorsStatistics
TutorsTest Prep TutorsWriting TutorsTer

URJHS Volume 7

Constructivist Teaching as an Effective Learning Approach

Ozlem Yuksel-Sokmen
Rossi Hassad*
CUNY Hunter College

Abstract
The objective of this paper was to offer a critical analysis of a college-level math course. The position was
taken that the said courses learning objective could be generally defined as a behaviorist approach.
Therefore, in view of the prevailing scientific literature, the following analysis offers effective pedagogical
strategies that can benefit the overall construction of the class in question. The successive discussion is
organized by the following interrelated constituents: content, objectives, teaching methods, and
assessment.
The human mind can only know what the human mind has made"
~ Giambattista Vico, 1710 ~
Introduction:
Is the general and common fear of taking math classes an inherited trait or a developed phobia due to
passive and ineffective teaching methods? According to Lochhead (1992, p. 543), mathematics is the
only privileged school discipline that the majority of educated adults voluntarily claim to be incompetent.
He posits that the teachings of constructivism releases or dismantles the mental blockage of math and
leads to a counter-construction, inferring that everyone can learn. Constructivism not only changes the
learners cognitive concepts of the nature of math awareness but also convinces learners to construct
math by themselves and for themselves. (p. 544). Although the constructivist learning framework is
widely applied throughout K-12 programs, including special aid programs, (Mercer & Jordan, 1994), a
nationwide quantitative study by Goubeaud & Wenfan (2004) revealed that teacher educators seem to be
more constructivist in instruction than higher education faculty. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to
critically look at a single case of instruction method of a college course on the basis of peer reviewed
literature. The course in question was taught at CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Fall 2006.
Background
As a mandatory prerequisite class for undergraduate students, the above-mentioned course,
entitled Modern Math, displayed a systematic treatment of the foundation of college algebra. Topics
covered were complex numbers, systems of linear equations and inequalities, various forms of functions,
such as increasing or decreasing, quadratic, polynomial or exponential; as well as the theory of
equations, logarithms and related applications.
Discussion
Content of the Course
The course in question covered basic foundations for algebraic understanding of problem solving.
Starting with a review of fundamental knowledge, the course materials were unambiguously textbook
sources with the tendency to gradually build on previous covered knowledge. A linear progression of
topics, starting with rudimentary elements, i.e., properties of real numbers or fractions, reinforced with
problem solving tasks and rigid calculations, were systematically covered. The structure of the course did

not allow the student to construct the acquired knowledge in a new dimension but gave the student an
early and short taste of success by initially presenting the course materials in a simplified manner while
the given formulas were expected to be memorized. Accordingly, the content and structure of the course
in question can be seen as representing B. F. Skinners type R conditioning of his influential doctrine of
operant conditioning. Since any response that is followed by a reinforcing stimulus tends to be
repeated (Hergenhahn & Olsen, 2001, p. 77), the initial introduction of simple materials of the described
course not only resulted in the somehow learning of the mathematical material but also reinforced
repeating behavior towards forthcoming more complex materials. The stimulus-response theory might
help the student to quickly retrieve the memorized material under test conditions, but does it lead to a
fundamental understanding of the underlying meanings of mathematical concepts? Cobb, Wood, and
Yackel (1992) argued that rote memorization of course materials leads to passive learning. They
suggested that active learning was fostered by teaching more mathematical concepts and less theories
and recipes (p. 16). Consequently, the course would benefit if it stressed mathematical thinking and not
mathematical memorization because the student would be able to apply the acquired understanding to
more complex and realistic problems outside the box or classroom environment. Furthermore, it is
advised as a teaching strategy for the course in question that the learner be initially immersed into a
complex topic. The presented material should be interesting and pragmatic enough to not only motivate
the student to construct own ways of solving problems but should result in an augmenting discovery of
possibilities. Thus, the recipe (Cobb, et al, 1992) should be in the students head to craft a
comprehensive frame of thinking.
Objectives of the Course
The objectives of the course were to acquire mathematical skills of models that were strictly guided from
the required textbook. Rather than stressing logical thinking and understanding of mathematical
concepts, the courses objective was the development of computational skills. For instance, the course in
question neglected to use or introduce methods of proofs and independent mathematical reasoning. The
nature of algebraic complex numbers was explained and demonstrated by means of second-hand data
and quantified models. In a nutshell, the objectives were confined to textbook problems without
emphasizing real life problems or solutions. To some extent the objectives of the course were enunciated
by providing the means and formulas to solve the asked problems. For example, constant repetition of
elements of numbers in class seemed to be a central goal for skill acquisition. Inasmuch as the course
was a prerequisite for higher levels of math classes, and aimed to prepare the students to the next level,
the said course as a whole was constrained to textbook problem solving without an emphasis on
mathematical thinking. In contrast to its behaviorist nature, a constructivist approach of teaching would
be desirable for a learner-driven outcome.
Teaching Methods of the Course
The analyzed courses teaching method primarily consisted of knowledge transmission to a broad passive
audience through lecture and textbook applications in the old fashioned expository format (Inch, 2002,
p. 111). Emphasis was on rote memory learning of mathematical rules and formulas. For instance,
formulas for bionomic calculations were handed out, but the derivation or formation of the distributed
formulas were not addressed, hence method of proofs was absent. The sole demand was to learn the
formulas by heart and be able to retrieve upon testing conditions. As a result, the said course can be
characterized as a traditional math instruction with behaviorist drill and problem-solving tasks. Since the
turn of the century, traditional teaching based on the framework of behaviorism, such as the course in
question, is being replaced by inquiry-based teaching, facilitating a constructivist framework of learning.
Advocates of the constructivist-teaching paradigm (Draper, 2002), recommend a more student-centered
math classroom that deemphasizes rote memorization of isolated skills and facts and emphasizes
problem solving and communication (p. 523). According to Larochelle & Bednarz, (1998) a constructivist
classroom is rich in conversation. By conversing, the teacher infers the learning level and preparation of
the student and coaches the communication so that the learner is able to construct meaning,

understanding, and knowledge. Teachers who embrace constructivism reject the transmission model of
teaching (Richardson, 1997).
Although the course in question solely relied on secondary data sets to solve problems transmitted by
the lecturer (transmission model of teaching), the constructivist classroom adopts raw data as primary
source. It further implements interactive materials to enhance experiential learning for the students
(Jaramillo, 1997; Inch, 2002). Accordingly, the questioned course should use course materials that are
gathered by the students for examination and interpretation, i.e., in place of presenting overused word
problems such as, Betsy is six times as old as her brother Bob when the train leaves Boston. It is
advantageous, for the learning effect of the course in question, if raw data are collected from newspapers
or if connections can be seen between algebraic numbers and street signs and parked cars or even
political polls, among others. The doctrine of constructivism postulates that the students teach
themselves rather than passively consume lecture notes and calculations on the board. Constructivism
engages the learner to internalize teaching concepts in a new light, empowering the learning effect. The
role of the teacher transforms into a coach who guides the topics with proximity to the learners. The
students work together in small groups to solve problems and engage in inquiry in order to construct
knowledge out of experience (Cobb et al., 1992).
Assessment of the Course
Besides class participation, weekly homework assignments were collected and graded. Furthermore, the
assessment of the course consisted of one mandatory final exam and three quizzes to test the learning of
factual information by means of a multiple-choice format. The lowest quiz score was dropped. This latter
technique finds its root within negative reinforcement in operant conditioning. Subsequently, the removal
of the lowest grade (aversive stimulus) increases the behavior to score better in future quizzes (desired
behavior).
"'Knowing' mathematics is 'doing' mathematics" (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, p.
7, in Draper, 2002) catches the constructivist framework. In order to assess the students knowledge is
to immerse them actively in the process of teaching by discovery learning. Correspondingly, an additional
beneficiary assessment in the present course discussion can be measured if a student goes to the board
and works on a given problem by explaining each step. In case the student feels lost at the board,
another student could assist so that they resolve the algebraic problem as a team. This way the teacher
is assured that the students understand the mathematical concepts in comparison to factual reception of
course material and, at the same time, comes to see what kind of comprehensive difficulties the students
might have.
Relating to the constructivist theory of learning, the learner is active and continuously constructs and
reconstructs conception of phenomena. The learning is not assessed with separate examination at the
end of the course, but assessment methods are integrated into the learning process itself (Tynjala,
1998). The objective of the assessment is to encourage the learning process resulting in the discovery of
qualitative changes in the students knowledge base. As a result, the course in question would benefit
from an assessment method that stresses the application or performance that displays development of
metacognition and critical thinking (p. 176) in an authentic and constructive way.
Even though comparative studies that assess the learning outcomes of students in primary schools or
colleges do not yield statistical significant differences between traditional versus constructivist teaching
methods (Chung, 2004; Tynjala, 1998; alsosee Anghileri, 1989; Fosnot, 2001), the effectiveness of
constructivist teaching as higher-order learning is supported.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that the title of the course in question anticipated a modern framework for mathematical

discoveries, the teaching method was old fashioned and truthful to its behaviorist forerunners. Especially
in higher education, the teaching of constructivism should be applied to immerse the learner into critical
thinking because concept-driven learning prepares the college student for professional life. In contrast to
rote memorization of factual knowledge that is lost later on due to lack of substantial meaning and
connection, the higher-order learning facilitates a long-term base of knowledge.
Moreover, constructivism not only rejects the idea that students come to class with no built-in mental
content (tabula rosa) but functions as a therapeutic means to release the perception of incompetence.
Class participation in active discovery and confrontation with real life ideas is increased in the process of
constructing fear-free learning.

References
Anghileri, J. (1989). An investigation of young childrens understanding of multiplication. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 10,367-385.
Chung, I. (2004, Winter2004). A comparative assessment of constructivist and traditionalist
approaches to establishing mathematical connections in learning multiplication. Education, 125(2),
271-278. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of
mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2-33.
Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Draper, R. (2002, March). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy
instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520.
Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at Work: Constructing the number system,
addition and subtraction.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Press.
Goubeaud, K., & Wenfan, Y. (2004). Teacher educators' teaching methods, assessments, and grading:
A comparison of higher education faculty's instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40, 1-16.
Retrieved October 10, 2008, from MasterFILE Premier database.
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olsen, M. H. (2001). An introduction to theories of learning. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Inch, S. (2002, Summer). The Accidental Constructivist A Mathematician's Discovery. College
Teaching, 50(3), 111-114. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Jaramillo, J. (1996, Fall). Vygotskys sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of
constructivist curricula.Education, 117(1), 133. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garisson, J. (eds.) (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lochhead, J. (1992, October). Knocking down the building blocks of learning: Constructivism and the
ventures program.Educational Studies in Mathematics, Constructivist Teaching: Methods and Results ,

23(5), pp. 543-552. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from Academic Search Premier.
Mercer, C., & Jordan, L. (1994, Fall 1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to
students with moderate to mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 290. Retrieved
October 12, 2008, from MasterFILE Premier database.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education; Theory and practice. In V.
Richardson (ed.), Constructivist Teacher Educational: Building New Understandings (pp. 3-14).
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Tynjala, P. (1998, June). Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: Do
learning outcomes differ?Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 173. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.

RESOURCES:

2002-2016 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community.

Research Journal: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4 Vol. 5 Vol. 6 Vol. 7 Vol. 8 Vol. 9 Vol. 10 Vol.
11 Vol. 12 Vol. 13 Vol. 14 Vol. 15
High School Edition
Call for Papers 1 Call for Papers 2 Inventory News
Planning Conference Priorities Faculty Development Priority Issues Institutional
Plan URC Home
KON

ms of UsePrivacy PolicyLocationsDirectories