Mathematics Education Research Journal 1998, Vol. 10, No.

3, 4-27

Development of Angle Concepts:

A Framework for Research
Michael Mitchelmore Paul White
Macquarie University Australian Catholic University

36 Grade 4 children were interviewed to find how they interpreted the angles
implicit in six realistic models. Angle recognition varied considerably across the six
situations, as did children's tendency to recognise angular similarities between
them. Based on these and other results, a framework for further research on the
development of children's angle concepts is proposed. It is suggested that children
first classify their everyday angle experiences into physical angle situations; they then
group situations to form physical angle contexts; and then they gradually group
contexts into abstract angle domains. Each classification step leads to the formation of
a corresponding angle concept.

Although angle is a basic concept used to analyse our spatial environment, it

causes students difficulties well into secondary school (Mitchelmore, 1983; Close,
1982). One reason is that angle appears to be a very complex concept, covering at
once turns, ray pairs, and regions (Mitchelmore, 1989). In-this paper, we examine
this complexity in detail and, with the aid of some empirical evidence, consider
h o w children might learn to integrate the various aspects into one concept.

Background
Several authors have noted the wide variety of definitions of angle used in
school mathematics textbooks (Close, 1982; Krainer, 1989; Strehl, 1983). Most
recently, Lo, Gaddis, and Henderson (1996) reported that they had found no
fewer than nine different definitions in textbooks for preservice elementary
teachers in the Yale University library. Euclid's definition was "the inclination to
one another of two lines ... which meet" (Heath, 1956, p. 176). Modern definitions
of angle tend to fall into three broad categories, viewing angle as either an amount
of turning between two lines meeting at a point, a union of two rays with a
common end point, or the intersection of two half-planes. These three categories
seem to be reflecting or formalising the three aspects (turn, ray pair, region)
previously referred to.
Because of the many-sided nature of the angle concept, textbook definitions
cause secondary students much difficulty (Strehl, 1983). If one is taught that an
angle is an amount of turning, how can one interpret a corner as an angle? If an
angle is defined as a ray pair, how does one distinguish between the two angles
formed at the vertex? If an angle is defined as a region, what does one do about
angles greater than 360°? The problem is only solved for students when they
recognise that the s a m e concept is involved in all these different situations. They
must come to realise that there is some concept of angle which is, as it were,
greater than the sum of all the different definitions of angle. It is not possible to
express this concept in w o r d s if it were, there would be no such plethora of
Development of Angle Concepts 5

definitions but it certainly involves two lines meeting at a point and some
relation between them. The relation expresses itself differently in different
circumstances; it may, for example, be an amount of turning, the relative
inclination of two rays, or the sharpness of an angular region.
We shall call the superordinate concept of angle--two lines meeting at a point
with an angular relation between them--the standard general angle concept. The
word "general" is intended to indicate that the concept applies to all angle
situations, in contrast to specific angle concepts such as those incorporated in the
turn, ray pair, and region definitions of angle. The w o r d "standard" indicates that
we are referring to the concept of angle generally used in mathematics, leaving
open the possibility of non-standard angle concepts.
The concept definition (Vinner, 1990) of the standard general angle
encompasses all possible angle situations. However, a student's concept image of
an angle m a y be different from the concept definition (as Vinner and his
colleagues have repeatedly demonstrated for other concepts). Older students m a y
be able to conceptualise the angles in turns, ray pairs, or regions, but m a y not be
able to relate them. Younger students may be able to conceptualise certain angle
situations in terms of ray pairs or regions, but m a y not conceptualise turns in
terms of angles at all (Mitchelmore, 1998). When a student interprets a given angle
situation as involving two lines meeting at a point, with an angular relation
between them, we shall say that the student has recognised the standard angle in
that situation. Recognition of the standard angle in a given angle situation is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a standard general angle
concept.
H o w well can students of various ages recognise that the same concept is
involved in angle situations which may, at first sight, seem very different? There
has been very little research on this question. As far as we can tell, no-one apart
from ourselves has asked how easy it is for students to recognise the standard
angle in various situations or to recognise standard angle-related similarities
between different angle situations. The study to be described below is one in a
series of investigations into these questions.

Classifying Angle Situations

We shall use the term physical angle situation to mean an everyday situation,
such as a pair of scissors, that implicitly involves one or more angles. Before
investigating how well children might recognise the standard angle in such
situations, it was necessary to categorise them. Although angle has often been
regarded in mathematics as having three main aspects, a closer study of everyday
situations suggested that there might be as many as seven (Mitchelmore, 1990).
However, there was no evidence that children actually classify physical angle
situations on the basis of such mathematical distinctions. It was therefore decided
to construct a tentative classification based on the superficial similarities to which
children might pay attention, rather than the deeper similarities which interest
mathematicians.
6 Mitchelmore & White

The first step was the construction of a long list of physical angle situations
which might be familiar to young children. An important source was Krainer
(1989), who obtained a vast number of responses when he asked 12-year-old
children to name e v e r y d a y situations involving angles. He classified the examples
by area of usage (household, games, transport, and so on) and also made a
distinction between those which involved some sort of turning m o t i o n and those
which were fixed. Further examples of angle situations were taken from earlier
publications (including Mitchelmore & Raynor, 1967, and Mitchelmore, 1990),
discussions with the preservice teachers, an examination of school textbooks,
observation of the immediate environment, and our knowledge of children's toys
and play activities.
The next step was to group the situations in terms of their physical similarity,
focusing on characteristics which were expected to be obvious to children but
keeping in mind simple geometrical features which might also come into play.
The result is given in Table 1. The following were some of the considerations
which arose in constructing this table.
Single objects turning about a fixed point seemed to form an unambiguous
first category, but even here a distinction could be made between cases where the
rotation is continuous, unidirectional and unlimited (as in a revolving door) and
those where the rotation is occasional, bidirectional and limited (such as a hinged
door).
Contrasted to this was a second category consisting of two distinct, linear
parts meeting or jointed at a point about which they may or m a y n o t rotate. A
previous study (Mitchelmore, 1992) suggested that children might differentiate
between cases where the two parts do or do not extend on both sides of the point
of intersection.
Most of Krainer's (1989) fixed contexts involve sloping objects. The concept of
slope seems well-known to children and suggests a third category of angle
situations which might appear quite early in child development. In the situations
in this category, the "normal" position m a y be either vertical or horizontal. We
surmise that, because the normal position is not usually visible, children do not
attend to this difference. On the other hand, some sloping objects (trees, legs,
struts, and so on) are strongly linear and others (such as roofs and hillsides) look
more like plane surfaces. It is possible that children do not immediately recognise
the similarity between sloping lines and sloping planes.
Angles are frequently introduced in primary school using corners, a fourth
category of angle situations. Corners are unambiguously fixed, and are also
different from slope in that both arms of the angle are visible. Two types of corner
can be distinguished: those between two lines on the edges of a plane shape and
those between two planes in space.
Objects consisting of a single bent object, such as a boomerang, seemed
different from those made from two distinct parts joined or crossing at a point.
They might be more similar to the angle formed by the trace of an object moving
in a bent path, such as a deflected cricket ball. A fifth category consisting of bent
objects and paths was therefore postulated.
Development of Angle Concepts 7

Table 1
A Tentative Classification of Physical Angle Situations
1. Turn: a rotation about a real or imaginary axis
(a) Unlimited Merry-go-round, ceiling/floor fan, body turns, revolving
door, flashing alarm light, lighthouse
(b) Limited Radio/TV/oven knob, screwtop, water tap, washing
machine pulsator, meter with pointer, hinged
door/window, seesaw, swing, windscreen wiper,
pendulum

2. Meeting: an object consisting of two distinct linear components

(a) Incidence Collision, junction, penknife, pair of compasses, hands of
a clock; letter T
(b) Crossing Cross, crossroad, lattice, scissors, letter X

3. Slope: a deviation from the vertical or horizontal

(a) Line Slanting pole/tree, railway signal, table leg, floor drain,
slide, road, stairs, altitude of sun, plumb line/spirit level
(b) Plane Roof, ramp, wall, slanting window

4. Corner: a part of a rigid object near an edge or vertex

(a) Planes Walls, wedge, ridge
(b) Edges Table top, tile, set square, arrowhead, pencil point

5. Bend: a series of two or more consecutive linear segments

(a) Object Bent limb, boomerang, swept wing, bend in a road
(b) Path Rebound, deflection, LOGO trace

6. Direction: a deviation of one line from a fixed (imaginary) line

(a) Object Compass direction, relative position
(b) Path Movement of ball/person/boat/aircraft

7. Opening: a region bounded by two rays emanating from a point

(a) Solid Spanish fan
(b) Fluid Garden spray, torch beam

Directions formed a sixth category of angle situations. The direction of a ray is

conveniently specified by the angle between that ray and a fixed reference ray
such as the north direction. As in the slope category, one arm of angles in this
category consists of some (usually imaginary) "normal" position from which
deviations are measured, but here the angle lies in the horizontal rather than the
vertical plane--enough to make it unlikely that children will immediately
recognise the similarity between slope and direction. Direction situations seem to
8 Mitchelmore & White

fall into two subcategories: those where a distant object is viewed b y a static
observer, and those where an object actually travels in a straight line in a
particular direction.
A few contexts still remained which did not fit clearly into any of the above
categories. A Spanish fan is like a comer (but variable) and like two linear objects
joined at a point (but the angle is filled). Garden sprays and torch beams are
similar to the Spanish fan, except that the "filling" is fluid and m o v e m e n t is
outward from the vertex. It was decided to put these contexts into a seventh
category.
We note that the seven categories shown in Table 1 do not correspond to the
seven aspects of angle identified by the mathematical analysis reported b y
Mitchelmore (1990). On the other hand, one can see that the situations in Category
1 lend themselves most clearly to the turn definition of angle; Categories 2, 3, 5,
and 6 to the ray-pair definition; and Categories 4 and 7 to the region definition.
From now on, we shall refer to the 14 classes shown in Table I as physical angle
contexts. The classification is only tentative because it has been made by us and not
by children. For example, children might make no distinction between limited and
unlimited turns, or they might differentiate turns according to some other
property. There m a y therefore be more or fewer than 14 contexts. Also, their
grouping into 7 pairs might not stand up to empirical verification.
Despite its tentative nature, Table 1 allowed us to pose the following research
questions:
• What knowledge do children have of the physical angle situations in the
various contexts?
• Do children indeed classify their physical angle experiences into the
predicted contexts?
• Can children recognise the standard angle in each context?
• Can children recognise angle-related similarities between different angle
contexts?
In a previous s t u d y designed to explore these questions (Mitchelmore, 1997),
we investigated Grade 2 students' interpretation of six familiar situations taken
from six different physical angle contexts. Recognition of the standard angle was
assessed from the w a y students employed a variety of angle models to represent
each situation. We found that children had excellent knowledge of each situation
and that they appeared to classify physical angle situations into contexts very
much as predicted. However, there was considerable variation between situations
in children's recognition of the standard angle, the proportion of such responses
varying from 17% to 85%. There was a similar variation in the proportion of
children recognising standard angle-related similarities between situations.
The present s t u d y was designed to confirm and extend the results of the
Grade 2 study to Grade 4 children. We were also looking for changes between
Grade 2 and Grade 4 and their possible relation to the formal instruction in angle
which in New South Wales schools usually occurs in Grade 3 and early Grade 4.
Finally, we hoped to be able to use the results to construct a theoretical
framework for further work on children's developing angle concepts.
Development of Angle Concepts 9

Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 36 students chosen from two Grade 4 classes in each
of two schools in western Sydney and was balanced for gender. The average age
was 9.6 years.

Materials
Six common physical angle contexts w e r e selected from Table 1: unlimited
turns about a fixed axis (la), crossings (2b), linear slopes (3a), plane corners (4a)~,
bent objects (5a) and bent paths (5b). One supposedly familiar situation was then
chosen from each context (doll, scissors, hill, tiles, roads, cricket). These were the
same contexts and situations as previously investigated (Mitchelmore, 1997).
Each situation was represented by a realistic model, as shown in Figure 1. The
sizes of these models were as follows: doll 10 cm high, scissors 18 cm long, ramp
32 cm long, tiles side 5 cm, road map 76 cm x 55 cm, cricket field 47 cm square. In
the earlier study, the hill ramp had been supported by a vertical support which is
not present in the physical situation and was found to be distracting; the scissors
had been represented by a model consisting of two hinged rods, which it was later
realised was not realistic; and the roads model had a larger number of bends, a
smaller difference between the angles, and larger curves--all features which
seemed to confuse children. The other three models were identical to those used
in the Grade 2 study.
Seven angle models were also constructed (see Figure 2). Models A-C were
each made from two concentric circles made out of transparent plastic and slotted
together so that they could rotate relative to each other; one line was marked on

, f ~ j ~ '~__

Doll (unlimited turn) Scissors (crossing) Road (linear slope)

J 4

r ' [
Tiles (plane corner) Roads (bent object) Cricket (bent path)

Figure 1. Physical models of situations representing six angle contexts.

10 Mitchelmore & White

/ / / t 1
A B e

J
I)
J
n

E G

Figure 2. Abstract angle models.

each circle. Models D-F were made of straws joined either with thread (D) or a
pipe cleaner (E, F). Model G was made from two plastic circles, each with one
semicircle shaded black fastened at and rotatable about their common centre. The
radius of models A, B, C, and G was 8 cm, and the distance from the join to the
ends of the straws in models D, E, and F was 5 cm.
The angle models were based on familiar aids recommended for the teaching
of angle (see, for example, N e w South Wales Department of Education, 1989, p.
79). A variety of models was used in order to avoid possible limitations of one
particular material. The models were chosen in such a w a y that for each context
there was at least one model which seemed to fit it more closely than the others.
Thus turns, bent objects and bent paths all seem to involve two half-lines with a
common end-point (models C and F); slopes seem to involve one half-line incident
at a point on a full line (models B and E); crossings involve two full lines incident
at a common point (models A and D); and corners involve a region bordered by
two half lines with a common end point (model G). Each model was movable so
that it could be adjusted to fit different angles.

Interview Procedure
For the interviews, the six contexts were divided into three pairs: two contexts
expected to be seen as similar (slopes and corners), two with some physical
similarities (crossings and bent objects), and two with no obvious similarity (turns
and bent paths). In the previous study, these pairs were recognised as similar by
all, half and none of the children respectively. Twelve children (3 boys and 3 girls
Development of Angle Concepts 11

from each school) were interviewed on each pair of contexts, with order
counterbalanced.
All interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant. For each
situation presented, she probed three aspects of children's understanding: (1) their
knowledge o f that specific situation, which we shall call their "situated
knowledge" (Greeno, 1991); (2) the extent of the physical angle context in which
they included that situation; and (3) how the children used the given angle models
to represent that situation. After children had responded to their two situations.,
two further aspects were probed: (4) the similarities which children recognised
between the two situations; and (5) children's knowledge of the formal concept of
angle. Details of each phase are given below.
The interviews followed a fixed protocol, the interviewer using neutral
prompts such as "Good; anything else?" or "OK; show me how" whenever
necessary to obtain a better understanding of children's responses. All interviews
were audiotaped and transcribed the same day onto a response sheet; the authors
later categorised and coded non-quantitative responses.

Situated Knowledge
The interviewer demonstrated or asked children to demonstrate various
configurations of each physical model, including the most extreme configurations
they could imagine. Angles of 30 ° and 45 ° were included in all contexts except
turns, together with whichever of 0 °, 90 ° and 180 ° were meaningful. The
demonstrations were accompanied by questions intended to probe children's
understanding of the consequences of varying the implicit angle. The following
describes the general procedure for each context.
Doll. The interviewer turned the doll through various multiple, half and
quarter turns, in some cases asking "How much did the doll turn?" and in others
asking children to "turn the doll by tlqe same amount." Children were also asked
to explain the effect of the various turns on the direction the doll faced, and to
indicate "the most the doll could turn."
Scissors. Children were asked how they knew how much to open scissors
when cutting different objects, and to indicate the maximum, minimum, and
typical openings.
Hill. A model sports car was provided which could roll down the hill or could
be pushed up it. The interviewer set the slope of the road at approximately 30 °,
45 ° and 15 ° . Children were asked to predict whether the car would travel faster or
slower (both uphill and downhill) as the slope was varied, and to explain how
they reached their conclusions. They were then asked to demonstrate the "hardest
hill to drive up" and the easiest.
Tiles. The interviewer first made a flooring pattern using nine rhomboidal tiles
with angles of 45 ° and 135 ° . She then asked whether, if one of these tiles were to
become damaged, it could be replaced by a different rhomboidal tile (one with
angles 30 ° and 150°); and if not, why not. Children were then asked how the
12 Mitchelmore & White

corners of the two tiles differed, and to show with their fingers the shape of the
corner of a "normal" tile and "the sharpest possible comer."
Roads. Children drove a toy ambulance as fast as they could from the
"factory" on the left to the "hospital" on the right, using the two possible routes.
They were then asked to state which bends were the most difficult and which
were the easiest to drive around. Children were also asked to say how they could
tell whether a bend would be hard or easy, and to demonstrate the hardest and
easiest bend they could imagine.
Cricket. A ball was rolled along a groove to a "batter"--a block of wood, faced
in plastic foam, which could be rotated to deflect the ball in various directions; a
second block of wood representing a fielder was used to provide a target. After
the interviewer had demonstrated how to set the batter to deflect the ball to a
fielder on the left, she asked children to do the same for various positions on the
right and straight ahead, and to explain their method.

Context Definition
The interviewer asked children if they knew of anything else which "turns like
the doll", "opens and shuts like the scissors," "slopes like the hill," "has comers
like the tiles," "bends around like the roads," or "goes like the cricket ball."

Angle Modelling
The interviewer presented the angle models in the order A to G and asked
children if they could be used to show the given context. Children who answered
"yes" were asked to demonstrate how each accepted model would show a specific
configuration of the corresponding physical model. (All physical models were set
to show a 45 ° angle, except for the doll where a 360 ° turn was used.) After all
angle models had been presented, children were asked to state which one they
regarded as the best model for showing the given context.
Children were considered to have recognised the standard angle in each
situation if they used an angle model as follows.
Doll. One line representing the initial position and one line representing the
final position. The size of the angle between them represents the amount of
turning.
Scissors. One line through the pivot and the point of one blade and one line
through the pivot and the point of the other blade. The size of the angle represents
the degree of opening.
Hill. One line representing the hill and one line representing a reference
direction (usually the horizontal). The size of the angle represents the steepness of
the hill.
Tiles. One line representing each of the two edges of the tile which meet at the
corner. The size of the angle indicates the sharpness of the corner.
Developmentof Angle Concepts 13

Roads. One line parallel to the side of one road and one line parallel to the side
of the other road. The size of the angle is inversely related to the amount of
turning needed to drive around the bend.
Cricket. One line representing the path of the incoming ball a n d one line
representing the path of the ball after it has been hit. The size of the angle is
inversely related to the amount of deflection.

Similarity Recognition
After children had responded to their two situations, they were first asked
"Are these things the same, at all?" They were then asked whether and how their
best angle model of each situation could also show the other situation; if they had
chosen the same best model, this was simply pointed out to them. Finally, the
interviewer asked children to look more closely at their best model(s) and to say
again "what things are the same" in the two situations.

Formal Knowledge
The interviewer first asked children if they had done "anything like this" in
school. They were then asked to say what they understood by the w o r d "angle"
and if they knew what a "right angle" is. (This was the first time the interviewer
used the word "angle.") They were then asked if there were any angles and right
angles in their two situations, and to demonstrate them on the respective physical
model.
According to the state mathematics syllabus (New South Wales Department
of Education, 1989), which both class teachers said they adhered to, children
should have met ideas of corner, sloping lines, angle as "the amount of turning
between two lines about a common point" (p. 79), large and small angles,
everyday examples of turning, methods of comparing angles, and square corners.
Apart from the word "angle", no formal terminology is mentioned in the syllabus
until after Grade 4.

Results
In interpreting the following results, recall that 12 children responded to each
situation.

Situated Knowledge
Children's responses to the situated knowledge questions indicated that, with
few exceptions, they understood the physical situations very well. Two aspects of
the tasks caused children some difficulty.
Firstly, children often seemed aware of physical relations without being able
to put them into standard (adult) language. For example, all children knew the
term "half turn". By contrast, only four used the phrase "quarter turn" for a
forward-to-left t u r n - - b u t all the others showed that a right-to-forward turn was
the same amount of turning . Also, four children could only explain how to
14 Mitchelmore & White

predict either speed of ascent or descent in terms of slope, and two explained the
relation in terms of height only. In explaining how comers fit, seven children used
terms like "skinny" or "wider" instead of the expected "sharper." Similarly, all
children were eventually able to set the cricket batter to hit the ball to the fielders,
but only nine were able to explain how they achieved this.
A difficulty of a different kind occurred when children were asked to imagine
extreme slopes and comers. Almost all responses which were not exact were
approximately correct. A few children gave such explanations as "'You couldn't
drive up the hill if it was straight up", "If the road was straight it wouldn't be a
bend" and "If the comer was any smaller there wouldn't be any tile there." Also,
several children gave more extreme responses when asked if their first response
was the most extreme they could imagine. It seems likely that most approximately
correct responses in the slopes, comers and bent objects contexts were occasioned
by reluctance and not by any inability to imagine the extreme case.

Context Definition
Children were able to name several situations similar to most of the given
situations. The number of responses from the 12 children varied from 15 to 37,
and only a few cases were clearly not angle related.
Children found it easiest to name examples similar to the doll and tile..The
unlimited nature of the doll's turning was apparently highly salient, 30 out of 37
responses showing this characteristic and only 4 showing limited rotation about
an axis. The 30 responses for the tiles were evenly divided between examples of
comers in the room and comers in abstract geometrical figures. All the abstract
examples were 2-dimensional, but it was not clear in the concrete examples
whether children were thinking of the corners on the faces (2-dimensional) or
between the faces (3-dimensional).
The scissors and hill situations were also fairly easy. Most responses (15 out of
21) likened scissors to various hinged objects with two arms, but a few (5)
mentioned hinged objects with only one moveable arm. The hill model was most
often likened to other sloping linear objects (13 out of 21 responses), but 7
responses referred to sloping surfaces.
Roads and cricket were not so easy for children to find similar situations.
They seemed rather uncertain about any general, geometrical characteristics that
road bends might possess. The 18 responses included various tracks and paths, V-
shaped objects, closed regions, and junctions. The path of a cricket ball was
usually (11 out of 15 responses) seen as typical only of ball games in general, the
remaining 4 naming V-shaped objects.
These results seem to confirm that children do perceive the given angle
situations as members of broader angle contexts, even though those contexts are
not exactly as predicted in Table 1. Despite some uncertainties about the accuracy
of the contexts originally proposed for the six situations, we shall continue to use
them for the moment.
Development of Angle Concepts 15

Angle Modelling
Children's methods of representing each of the six angle situations using the
seven abstract models were easily classified into four categories as follows.
Precise standard modelling. Many responses indicated recognition of the
standard angle as defined above. In these responses, two lines on the abstract
model were clearly matched to two appropriate lines on the physical model and
the relation between the lines was explained in a manner consistent with an
interpretation of that situation in terms of the standard angle.
Approximate standard modelling. Several responses suggested that the child was
attempting unsuccessfully to interpret the situation in terms of the standard angle.
For example, the initial and final positions of the doll were sometimes
appropriately represented by two lines on the abstract model but a full turn of the
doll was shown by an angle of 180 °. (These responses only occurred on models A,
B and D. Children used one of the longer lines as their reference line and turned
the shorter line from one end of the longer line to the other end, not completing
the revolution.) Also, the angle model was frequently laid on the scissors with the
vertex not quite on the pivot and on the road junction with the lines not accurately
aligned with the roads. Such responses--all of which used both lines of the angle
model--were interpreted as showing approximate standard modelling.
Partial modelling. Many response.s used only one line of an angle model to
represent the slopes situation; a few similar cases occurred in the crossings
context. Such responses were classified as showing partial modelling--they do
represent angular features of the situation, but not in terms of the standard angle.
Irrelevant modelling. Children frequently rejected an angle model as irrelevant
to the given situation. Responses which did not indicate an appropriate angle
have also been included in this category. For example, in the bent paths context,
many children had difficulty showing the path of the ball; some indicated that the
ball travelled directly between the ends of the two arms of the angle model.
Table 2 shows the distribution of children's responses across these four
categories. It will be seen that there is a considerable variation between contexts in
the proportion of responses showing standard angle modelling and in the
accuracy with which this was achieved. In the turns, crossings, corners and bent
objects contexts, almost all children (over 90% in each case) used standard
modelling--although this was often approximate in the crossings and bent objects
contexts. Only 60% used standard modelling in the slopes context, with many
children using partial modelling. The bent paths context was the most difficult,
with only 40% of the responses showing standard modelling.
It is of some educational interest to examine which of the seven angle models
was most often used in standard modelling. Table 3 gives the relevant data.
Except for the bent paths context, there is very little difference between the seven
models. In the bent paths context, the two clearly superior models are in fact those
which were predicted to fit that context best. Overall, there was a slight tendency
 16 Mitchelmore & White

Table 2
Percentage Frequency of Each Method o/Abstract Modelling, by Angle Context
Method of abstract modelling
i i

Context Precise Approximate Partial Irrelevant

standard standard
Turns 76 13 0 11
Crossings 60 30 2 8
Slopes 62 2 21 15
Comers 89 1 0 10
Bent objects 65 25 0 10
Bent paths 40 4 0 56
Note. The p e r c e n t a g e s in each r o w are b a s e d on a total of 84 r e s p o n s e s (12 s t u d e n t s e a c h r e s p o n d i n g to 7
abstract models). For definitions of each m e t h o d of abstract m o d e l l i n g , see text..

for the V-shaped models (C, F and G) to be more often used in standard
modelling than the other models.

Similarity Recognition
Children's descriptions of the similarities they recognised between their two
contexts were classified into three categories according to whether, in terms of the
above definitions used to classify angle modelling, they implied standard, partial
or irrelevant modelling of both contexts. (No distinction could be made between
precise or approximate modelling in this case.) Table 4 shows the distribution of
the highest level of recognition found in children's responses to the interviewer's
two questions on similarity.

Table 3
Number of Responses Showing Precise or Approximate Standard Angle Modelling, by
Context and Abstract Angle Model
Angle Abstract angle model
context A B C D E F G

Turns 10 10 12 10 11 11 11
Crossings 12 8 11 12 10 11 11
Slopes 7 7 7 8 8 9 7
Corners 9 11 11 11 11 11 12
Bent objects 8 12 11 11 11 12 11
Bent paths 3 3 9 3 3 9 6
Note. The m a x i m u m n u m b e r in each cell is 12.
Development of Angle Concepts 17

Table 4
Number of Children Showing Each Category of Similarity Recognition, by Context Pair
Context Implied method of angle modelling
pair Standard Partial Irrelevant
Slopes, corners 7 5 0
Crossings, bent objects 11 0 1
Turns, bent paths 2 1 9
Note. Twelve children responded to each context pair.

All children recognised some angle-related similarity between slopes and

corners. Most initial explanations (9 out of 12) referred to the sides of the tiles as
sloping; these responses only matched one line in each context and were therefore
classified as partial angle modelling. However, several children changed to
standard modelling after looking at the models they had selected for each context.
Explanations implying standard angle modelling were evenly divided between
explanations such as "Hills have a corner at the bottom" which matched one
context to the other, and explanations such as "They both have two lines" which
identified a feature which was common to both contexts.
Almost all responses to the crossings-bent objects pair implied standard angle
modelling. Initial standard responses were evenly divided between matching
explanations such as "The blades of the scissors can fit down both roads in a
bend" and communality explanations such as "Both have corners". After looking
at the angle models, the latter prevailed (7 out of 11 responses).
By contrast, few children recognised any relevant angular similarity between
turns and bent paths. Six children remarked that both the doll and the batter
turned, despite the fact that the batter did not move during the rebound; because
this response did not relate the movement of the doll to the movement of the ball,
it was classified as irrelevant. In this last context pair, children did not change
their responses greatly after looking at their abstract models. Furthermore, all the
relevant explanations indicated communalities.

Formal Knowledge
The majority of the children (30 out of 36) either claimed not to have done
"anything like this" in school or specified a non-angle related topic. Only 4
children explicitly mentioned angles, a further 2 mentioning specific angle topics
(corners and tessellations). However, all children could give at least one definition
of an angle or demonstrate some examples. They gave a total of 55 responses, of
which 45% stated essentially that an angle consists of two lines meeting at a point;
22% that an angle is the point where two lines meet; and 15% that it is the area
between two lines. Only 4 children mentioned turning at all. Correct
demonstrations of right angles were given by 28 children--4 also claimed to know
about "left angles" (cf. Outhred, 1987).
18 Mitchelrnore & White

Almost all of the children were able to show how each of the given contexts
involved angles. Most exceptions occurred with turns, where 4 out of 12 children
referred to the irrelevant comers of the base supporting the doll and 3 saw no
angles. Also, 2 out of 12 referred only to the sloping line in the slopes context and
the same number referred only to the point in the comers context. In all contexts,
about half the children were able to show a right angle.

Discussion
The children in the present sample showed good knowledge of the six
physical angle situations presented, although several had a limited vocabulary for
describing them. However, the same could be said of the Grade 2 children in the
earlier study (Mitchelmore, 1997).
The six situations appeared to belong to six different contexts, all of which
seemed to be angle contexts. For the turn and bent path contexts, responses were
very similar to those obtained from the Grade 2 children. On the other hand, the
Grade 4 children mentioned fewer fixed crossings, named more sloping
situations, gave fewer examples of objects bent in a curve, and showed no
tendency to restrict corners to sharp objects--all of which suggest a clarification
and differentiation of the children's classification systems. Taken together, the
results suggest several amendments to Table 1. Category 1 (turns) seems to be
correct, but Category 2 (meetings) may need further subdivision according to
whether the objects are fixed or moveable. On the other hand, the division of
Categories 3 and 4 (slopes and comers) into two subcategories seems doubtful in
both cases. Category 5(a) is poorly defined because angled bends are not clearly
differentiated from curved bends, and Category 5(b) only seems to include
rebounds. No doubt research using other situations or contexts not included in
the present study will suggest further minor modifications, but the general outline
would seem to be confirmed.
Our results suggest a marked increase in recognition of the standard angle
between Grade 2 and Grade 4. In the three situations which were identical to
those used in the previous study, the frequency of precise standard modelling
increased from 45% to 76% for turns; from 47% to 89% for corners; and from 14%
to 40% for bent paths. The frequency of precise standard modelling of slopes,
where the change in the physical model was unlikely to have had an effect, also
increased--from 27% to 62%. All these four contexts showed a similar increase
averaging about 30-35%. (As expected, the change to the scissors model led to a
smaller than average increase--actually a decrease from 71% to 60%; and the
change to the bent objects model led to a larger than average increase--from 15%
to 65%.) It seems at least likely that the increase between Grade 2 and Grade 4
might have been the result of instruction. However, the definition of angle used in
that instruction does not seem to have been internalised by the majority of the
children.
The standard angle seems to have been used as the basis for similarity
judgements by almost all the children in the case of crossings and bent objects,
and by about half the children in the case of slopes and corners. This may be taken
Development of Angle Concepts 19

as evidence for the widespread existence of a standard angle concept which is,
however, not general. Other similarities were reported which do not relate to a
standard angle concept. For example, half the children linked slopes a n d comers
on the basis of a single, sloping line. Since this similarity links angle contexts, the
communality surely has the status of a non-standard angle concept. Further
evidence for the existence of this non-standard concept is provided by the
children in the present study who gave the sloping line in the hills model as an
example of an angle and the children in the Grade 2 s t u d y (Mitchelmore, 1997)
who modelled the turning doll with a single line. Not only does this non-standard
angle lack one of the two lines of the standard angle, but it seems to be restricted
to a few contexts.
It seems likely that the proportion of students who recognise the standard
angle similarity between two contexts will be closely related to the proportion
who recognise the standard angle in both contexts separately. The figure of 83%
who used the standard angle to compare crossings and bent objects (Table 4)
matches well with the 90% Who used the standard angle with crossings and the
90% with bent objects (Table 2). Similarly, the standard angle was used by 58% in
the slope-comer comparison, compared with 64% in the slopes context and 90% in
the comers context--also not surprising. On the other hand, although standard
modelling was used by 89% of the students for turns and 44% for bent paths, only
17% used the standard angle to compare turns and bent paths. The conclusion
must be that recognition of the standard angle in two different contexts does not
guarantee that the child will recognise that they are using same concept in both
contexts. What appears to the observer to be a general concept may in fact still be,
restricted to a particular context or contexts.

A Framework for Research on Angle Concept Development

The above discussion suggests that children's understanding of angle might
be well described in terms of the similarities they recognise between different
contexts. The standard angle concept has at least the potential to link all angle
contexts, but other angle concepts appear to exist which only link particular
contexts. We shall call all these abstract angle concepts, using the term "abstract" in
the sense of "general to a number of contexts". (This usage is not to be confused
with its meaning in mathematical theory, where abstract usually means "without
reference to any particular context".) Each abstract angle concept applies to a
particular set of contexts which we shall call an abstract angle domain.
We shall call concepts that are specific to one context, such as slope and turn,
contextual angle concepts. Each such concept is also based on the recognition of a
similarity, namely between all those physical angle situations which display that
concept. We can go back even further: Each angle situation, such as a turning doll
and an opening door, is also based on a vast number of physical experiences
which have been recognised as similar and given a common name.
We propose that learning about angle consists of recognising new
similarities--between angle experiences, between angle situations or between
angle contexts. Recognising a similarity between physical angle experiences
20 Mitchelmore & White

creates a physical angle situation; recognising a similarity between physical angle

situations creates a physical angle context; and recognising a similarity between
physical angle contexts creates an abstract angle domain. Each situation, context
and domain corresponds to a situated, contextual and abstract angle concept,
respectively. We thus obtain a framework consisting of three stages: (1) situated,
(2) contextual, (3) abstract concepts.
We shall now attempt to summarise each stage of our proposed framework in
a little more detail. Before we do so, we note that the three stages differ not only
in the classes on which each concept is based but also in the appropriate physical
representation for each concept and the generality of knowledge related to that
concept. Table 5 summarises our terminology and gives some examples of the
classes, concepts, models and knowledge to be found at each stage.

Table 5
Terminologyfor Various Stages of Angle Concept Development, and Some Examples
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Terminology
Class elements Physical angle Physical angle Physical angle
experiences situations contexts
Class formed Physical angle Physical angle Abstract angle
situation context domain
Concept formed Situated angle Contextual Abstract angle
concept angle concept concept
Physical representation Situated angle Contextual Abstract angle
model angle model model
Knowledge acquired Situated angle Contextual Abstract angle
knowledge angle knowledge
knowledge

Examples
Class elements Walking up Hills, cranes Slopes, corners
inclined paths,
driving up hills
Class formed Hills Slopes Angles
Concept formed Hill Slope Standard angle
Physical representation Ramp Inclined straw V-shape
Angle knowledge Steeper hills are This crane A square corner
more difficult to slopes more has the same
ascend than that hill angle as a
quarter turn
Developmentof Angle Concepts 21

Stage 1" Situated Angle Concepts

As soon as they become aware of their environment as infants, children have
many experiences which will later be seen to involve angles. They soon recognise
that some such experiences are very similar (for example, walking up and down
inclined paths) in terms of their purpose, the movement involved and the
geometrical configuration. Children therefore group all such experiences into one
mental class--a physical angle situation. The initial situation gradually extends to
include further, similar experiences (such. as riding up and down hills in a car). At
some stage, the situation acquires the status of an independent mental object
(Greeno, 1983) and will usually be given a name (in this example, probably "hill").
This mental object is a situated angle concept.
Each of the physical models used in this study was intended to represent a
specific physical angle situation; we shall therefore call them situated angle
models. Many children's toys, such as ramps and cranes, are also situated angle
models. A situated model represents the features common to a class of
experiences rather than any specific experience, and therefore also represents the
corresponding situated concept. A situated model is usually specific to a
particular situation--children do not commonly use a car ramp as a crane, for
example.
Young children develop much knowledge of particular physical angle
situations which makes no sense in others. For example, we have seen that
children in Grades 2 and 4 know that the steeper a hill, the more difficult it is to
ascend; that piece of knowledge would be of no help in building a toy crane. This
is an instance of situated angle knowledge.
The results of the present and the previous study (Mitc.helmore, 1997) suggest
that Stage 1 is completed before school age. It seems reasonable to assume that
most situated angle concepts and knowledge develop from play and various
social experiences during early childhood.

Stage 2: Contextual Angle Concepts

At some stage, children recognise deeper similarities between different
physical angle situations and begin to form angle contexts. For example, they
might see that hills and crane arms both slope and then gradually extend the idea
to include other examples of sloping objects. Angle contexts are formed on the
basis of obvious superficial similarities between configurations (in this example,
the presence of a single sloping linear feature); the actions performed and their
purpose vary widely from situation to situation. All the situations in a context
therefore share a common geometrical configuration. However, different contexts
exhibit different configurations; for example, all slopes consist of one line, all
corners are regions bounded by two lines and all turns consist of a certain type of
movement.
Children gradually come to realise that, although the situations in each angle
context are different, there is something about them which is "really the same".
This common idea is the corresponding contextual angle concept. Thus, the set of
all sloping objects leads to the concept of slope, the set of all turning objects leads
22 Mitchelmore & White

to the concept of turn, and so on. Each contextual angle concept m a y be said to
embody, encapsulate or reify that which is common to all the situations in that
context.
A model of a physical angle context and therefore of a contextual angle
conceptmmay be called a contextual angle model. A contextual model is quite
different from a situated model: It must represent that which is c o m m o n to all
situations in the context and not any specific situation. For example, m a n y
children in the present study represented the hill by one arm of an angle model. If
the same model were used to represent all sloping situations (which is certainly
possible), then the sloping line would be a contextual model. Similarly, the finding
that children much more frequently modelled a cricket rebound using angle
models C and F than the other models (see Table 5) m a y be interpreted as
showing that they were attempting to represent the specific V-shape implicit in
the rebound and were therefore using C and F as contextual models.
Once an angle context is recognised, children start to develop contextual angle
knowledge applying to all the situations included in each context (but not
necessarily across different contexts). For example, they m a y be able to compare
the slope of a hill and a crane arm, without being able to compare a slope and a
turn. Contextual knowledge was not specifically investigated in the present study,
but there are some indications of its presence. For example, children's reluctance
to embrace the extreme configurations in the slopes, comers and bent objects
contexts suggests the existence of contextual knowledge. A child who says "You
couldn't drive up the hill if it was straight u p " seems to know that the m a x i m u m
value of a slope is theoretically "straight up". This "theoretical" knowledge cannot
be derived from the hill situation alone but must come from knowledge of a
whole class of slope situations--that is, from the slope context. It is therefore what
we have called contextual knowledge.
The results of the present study suggest that, by age 9, most children have
almost completed Stage 2. Most children have formed contextual angle concepts
of turns, crossings, slopes, corners, bent objects and bent paths, although to
varying degrees of clarity. The difference in the Grade 2 and Grade 4 results
suggests that most contextual angle concepts and knowledge develop during
early primary school.

Stage 3: Abstract Angle Concepts

The geometrical configurations of the contexts which children form in Stage 2
differ considerably. In Stage 3, children become aware of similarities between
these configurations. Each similarity defines an abstract angle domain and could
lead to an abstract angle concept. As more and more contexts are seen to be
similar, a child's angle domain or domains gradually evolve into what we have
called the standard general angle concept.
The present study provides clear evidence for the widespread existence of a
rudimentary standard angle concept: All children recognised the standard angle
similarity between crossings and bent objects and about half the children
recognised that between slopes and corners. The children who remarked that
Development ofAngle Concepts 23

"scissors and roads both have comers" probably put all four contexts into one
abstract angle domain; but there must also have been many children for w h o m the
standard angle domain did not include all four contexts.
There is also clear evidence for a non-standard angle concept based on slope.
This is a second abstract angle domain. There may even be a third abstract angle
domain where the underlying similarity consists of a point, as suggested by the
children who defined an angle as the point where two lines meet or referred to the
vertex of the comer model as an angle.
When an angle model is used to represent more than one context, we shall call
it an abstract angle model. An abstract angle model must represent that which is
common to all the physical angle contexts in the corresponding abstract angle
domain. The angle models used in this study could all represent different angle
domains. A child who uses one arm to represent two different contexts is using
the model to represent the abstract angle domain based on slope and therefore the
slope concept of angle. A child who uses both arms of a model in more than one
context is representing a standard angle domain and therefore showing evidence
of a standard angle concept. We note that it is impossible to tell from the way a
child models a single context whether the model is an abstract or a contextual
model. However, the large number of responses shown in Table 3 where a model
that did not appear to be contextual was used in the standard manner (for
example, model E for scissors) suggests that many children were in fact using
abstract modelling in at least some situations.
Once children have started to form abstract angle concepts, they gain
knowledge which applies to all the contexts in the corresponding domain. We
shatl call this abstract angle knowledge. The ability of many children to identify
right angles in several angle contexts (although the term "right angle" is not
mentioned in the State syllabus) would seem to be evidence for the existence of
some abstract knowledge in the present sample. However, we surmise that
abstract angle knowledge develops largely as a result of secondary schooling.

Applications
The above theoretical framework fits well with some results consistently
reported in the literature on the development of children's angle concepts, namely
the responses children give when asked to say what an angle is. For example,
Davey and Pegg (1991) surveyed children from Grades 1 to 10 and reported that
their descriptions of an angle went through a sequence of four stages: (1) a corner
which is pointy or sharp; (2) a place where two lines meet; (3) the distance or area
between two lines; and (4) the difference between the slopes of the lines. Clements
& Battista (1989) found that Grade 3 children most commonly described an angle
as a sloping line, a place where two lines meet, the two lines themselves, or a turn
(the last only by children who had studied Logo). We obtained a similar range of
definitions in the present study. We suggest that children's responses actually
describe a specific angle context or domain. The "pointy corner" description
suggests that the corners context is particularly salient early on; this may also be
the only context in which children have heard the word angle used. Alternatively,
24 Mitchehnore & White

if a child has linked corners to other angle contexts, the description might refer to
a primitive abstract concept. A "sloping line" response might also refer to a single
context or to the postulated abstract angle domain based on slope. Grade 3
children who have been studying Logo m a y state that an angle is a turn because
the word had recently been used extensively in a context which involves
turningmnot because they realise that all angle situations can be interpreted in
terms of turning. Responses such as "two lines" and "a place where two lines
meet" clearly refer to the standard angle but suggest a rather limited domain,
whereas "the distance [or area] between two lines" and "the difference betweei~
the slope of two lines" could be regarded as evidence that the student is aware
that the concept is present in a wider range of contexts.
Our theory also explains an apparent anomaly in the present data. On the one
hand, few children described general angles in terms of turning or recognised the
standard angle in the turns situation. Such results are consistent with previous
studies; for example, Foxman and Ruddock (1984) found that only 4% of 15 year
old students spontaneously mentioned turning in defining an angle. On the other
hand, the children in our sample represented the turns context using the various
angle models in 89% of the responses. O u r explanation is that the angle models
were being used as contextual models of turning and not abstract angle models.
For the only superficial feature that all turn situations have in common is the
turning; m a n y do not have a turning line and in m a n y cases the centre of rotation
is not obvious. Any concrete model which turns but does not represent particular
situations is therefore acceptable as a contextual model of t u m i n g m a n d that
includes all the abstract angle models used in this study. In other words, children
probably interpreted the angle models contextually (representing turning) rather
than abstractly (representing angles in general).
This conclusion also explains w h y few students saw any similarity between
the doll and cricket situations. We have argued that, in both situations, most
children used the angle models as contextual models. This would imply that, even
if children used the same model to represent the two situations, they would
probably not see any similarity between them. Similarly recognition would only
be likely if the model could represent the same concept in different contexts, in
which case it would be an abstract angle model. Our data suggest that, for most
Grade 4 children, neither turns nor bent paths belong to an abstract angle domain.

Implications for Instruction

The data obtained in the present s t u d y provides some indication of the path
by which situations merge into contexts and contexts merge into domains, but
further research using a larger number of contexts and children from a wider age
range is needed to give clearer definition. It is also necessary to develop better
methods of distinguishing contextual and abstract angle models, and to
investigate in more depth the growth of children's contextual and abstract angle
knowledge. Even more important is the investigation of how children come to
recognise angle-related similarities between situations or between contexts and
Development of Angle Concepts 25

therefore how they may be helped to learn angle concepts. Nevertheless, the
results obtained to date have definite implications for instruction.
The present study has confirmed that children do not readily interpret turns
in terms of the standard angle. The basis for the turns context is the turning
movementmintuitively well-known to young children and, even though it leaves
no visible trace, adequately measured without the need to construct any lines. To
link turning to the standard angle, it must first be reconceptualised as a rotating
radius. Since this radius cannot simultaneously be in both the initial and final
position, a second radius must then be constructed as a reference line. This is
clearly a difficult task for most children, as we have recently confirmed
(Mitchelmore, 1997). It must therefore be difficult for children to recognise any
angle-related similarity between the turns context and other angle contexts.
The definition of angle as an amount of turning between two lines has been
widely promoted in the literature on the elementary mathematics curriculum (see,
for example, Wilson & Adams, 1992) but must now be regarded as completely
inappropriate. This definition had been used in the instruction experienced by the
children in the present study, but most of them still did not relate turning to
angles in general. If the observed growth in abstract modelling between Grades 2
and 4 was in any part a result of instruction, it was more likely due to the
emphasis on looking for angles in everyday situations and on comparing angle
sizes using angle models than to the attempt to interpret those situations in terms
of turning.
To us, it seems that a more viable instructional sequence would start by
looking for similarities between those physical angle contexts which most clearly
involve two lines--including crossings, comers and bent objects. Children would
thereby be helped to form a primitive angle domain from these contexts and
hence to abstract the standard angle concept. Identifying angles in the
environment and comparing angle sizes would be important parts of this
instruction. No formal definition of angle would be imposed, but children would
be encouraged to Verbalise the common elements and to construct abstract angle
models which would embody the communalities. Later instructional segments
could then investigate contexts which children do not naturally interpret using the
standard angle model, either because the lines are not clear (e.g., rebounds) or
because one line or both lines must be constructed (e.g., slopes, turns). Each of
these segments would have the aims of strengthening children's contextual
knowledge, linking the new context to previous angle contexts, extending existing
abstract angle domains and developing abstract angle knowledge.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the principals, teachers, and children who participated in
this study for their willing cooperation; Liz Sapir for her careful and insightful
interviewing; and the Australian Catholic University for its financial support
(Special grant No. 93056).
26 Mitchelmore & White

References
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1989). Learning of geometrical concepts in a Logo
environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 450-467.
Close, G. S. (1982). Children's understanding of angle at the primary/secondary transfer stage.
London, England: Polytechnic of the South Bank.
Davey, G., & Pegg, J. (1991, July). Angles on angles: students' perceptions. Paper presented at
the 14th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia, Perth.
Foxman, D., & Ruddock, G. (1984). Concepts and skills: Line symmetry and angle.
Mathematics in Schools, March, 9-13.
Greeno, J. G. (1983): Conceptual entities. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental
models (pp. 227-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170-218.
Heath, T. L. (1956). The thirteen books of Euclid's Elements (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Dover
Publications.
Krainer, K. (1989). Lebendige Geometrie: Clberlegungen zu einem integriven Versti~ndnis von
Geometrieunterricht anhand des Winkelbegriffs. [Living geometry: Deliberations on a
comprehensive understanding of geometry teaching as exemplified by the angle
concept.] Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
Lo, J.-J., Gaddis, K., & Henderson, D. (1996). Building upon student experience in a college
geometry course. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 34-40.
Mitchelmore, M. C., & Raynor, B. (1967). Joint Schools Project mathematics (Book 1). Harlow,
England: Longmans.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1983). Children's learning of geometry: Report of a cooperative
research project. Caribbean Journal of Education, 10, 179-228.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1989). The development of children's concepts of angle. In G.
Vergnaud (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 304-311). Paris, France: Program
Committee.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1990). Psychologische und mathematische Schwierigkeiten beim
Lernen des Winkelbegriffs. [Psychological and mathematical difficulties in learning
the angle concept.] Mathematica Didactica, 13, 19-37.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1992). Children's concepts of perpendiculars. In W. Geeslin & K.
Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 120-127). Durham, NH: Program
Committee.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997). Children's informal knowledge of physical angle situations.
Learning and Instruction, 7, 1-19.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1998). Young students' concepts of turning. Cognition and Instruction,
16, 265-284.
New South Wales Department of Education (1989). Mathematics K-6. Sydney: Author.
Outhred L. (1987). Left angle or right angel: Children's misconceptions of angle. Research in
Mathematics Education in Australia, August, 41-47.
Strehl, R. (1983). Anschauliche Vorstellung und mathematische Theorie beim
Winkelbegriff. [Visualisation and mathematical theory of the angle concept.]
Mathematica Didactica, 6, 129-146.
Developmentof Angle Concepts 27

Vinner, S. (1990). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D.
Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65-81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Wilson, P. S., & Adams, V. M. (1992). A dynamic way to teach angle and angle measure.
Mathematics Teacher, 39(5), 6-13.

Authors
Michael C. Mitchelmore, School of Education, Macquarie University NSW 2109. E-marl:
<mike.mitchelmore@mq.edu.au>.

Paul White, School of Education, Australian Catholic University, 179 Albert Road,
Strathfield NSW 2135. E-mail: <p.white@mary.acu.edu.au>.