



I used these shirts as props when teaching Precalculus this week, and they worked like a charm.
After deriving the three Pythagorean identities from trigonometry, I told my class that I got these hand-made his-and-hers T-shirts for my wife’s birthday a couple of years ago. If you can’t see from the picture, one says and the other
.
After holding up the shirts, I then asked the class what mathematical message was being communicated.
After a few seconds, someone ventured a guess: “We add up to 1?”
I answered, “That’s right. Together, we’re one.”
Whereupon the class spontaneously reacted with a loud “Awwwwwwwwww.”
I was exceedingly happy.
In my capstone class for future secondary math teachers, I ask my students to come up with ideas for engaging their students with different topics in the secondary mathematics curriculum. In other words, the point of the assignment was not to devise a full-blown lesson plan on this topic. Instead, I asked my students to think about three different ways of getting their students interested in the topic in the first place.
I plan to share some of the best of these ideas on this blog (after asking my students’ permission, of course).
This student submission comes from my former student Daniel Adkins. His topic, from Precalculus: deriving the double angle formulas for sine, cosine, and tangent.
How does this topic extend what your students should have already learned?
A major factor that simplifies deriving the double angle formulas is recalling the trigonometric identities that help students “skip steps.” This is true especially for the Sum formulas, so a brief review of these formulas in any fashion would help students possibly derive the equations on their own in some cases. Listed below are the formulas that can lead directly to the double angle formulas.
A list of the formulas that students can benefit from recalling:
This leads to the next topic, an activity for students to attempt the equation on their own.
How could you as a teacher create an activity or project that involves your topic?
I’m a firm believer that the more often a student can learn something of their own accord, the better off they are. Providing the skeletal structure of the proofs for the double angle formulas of sine, cosine, and tangent might be enough to help students reach the formulas themselves. The major benefit of this is that, even though these are simple proofs, they have a lot of variance on how they may be presented to students and how “hands on” the activity can be.
I have an example worksheet demonstrating this with the first two double angle formulas attached below. This is in extremely hands on format that can be given to students with the formulas needed in the top right corner and the general position where these should be inserted. If needed the instructor could take this a step further and have the different Pythagorean Identities already listed out (I.e. Cos2(a) = 1 – Sin2(a), Sin2(a) = 1 – Cos2(a)) to emphasize that different formats could be needed. This is an extreme that wouldn’t take students any time to reach the conclusions desired. Of course a lot of this information could be dropped to increase the effort needed to reach the conclusion.
A major benefit with this also is that even though they’re simple, students will still feel extremely rewarded from succeeding on this paper on their own, and thus would be more intrinsically motivated towards learning trig identities.
How can Technology be used to effectively engage students with this topic?
When it comes to technology in the classroom, I tend to lean more on the careful side. I know me as a person/instructor, and I know I can get carried away and make a mess of things because there was so much excitement over a new toy to play with. I also know that the technology can often detract from the actual math itself, but when it comes to trigonometry, and basically any form of geometric mathematics, it’s absolutely necessary to have a visual aid, and this is where technology excels.
The Wolfram Company has provided hundreds of widgets for this exact purpose, and below, you’ll find one attached that demonstrates that sin(2a) appears to be equal to its identity 2cos(a)sin(a). This is clearly not a rigorous proof, but it will help students visualize how these formulas interact with each other and how they may be similar. The fact that it isn’t rigorous may even convince students to try to debunk it. If you can make a student just irritated enough that they spend a few minutes trying to find a way to show you that you’re wrong, then you’ve done your job in that you’ve convinced them to try mathematics for a purpose.
After all, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how you begin your classroom, or how you engage your students, what matters is that they are engaged, and are willing to learn.
Wolfram does have a free cdf reader for its demonstrations on this website: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/AVisualProofOfTheDoubleAngleFormulaForSine/
References
I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series on different ways of computing the limit
Part 1: Algebra
Part 2: L’Hopital’s Rule
Part 3: Trigonometric substitution
Part 4: Geometry
Part 5: Geometry again
I’m doing something that I should have done a long time ago: collecting a series of posts into one single post. The following links comprised my series on different ways of solving the contest problem “If , what is
?”
Part 1: Drawing the angle
Part 2: A first attempt using a Pythagorean identity.
Part 3: A second attempt using a Pythagorean identity and the original hypothesis for .
One of my colleagues placed the following problem on an exam for his Calculus II course…
and was impressed by the variety of correct responses that he received. I thought it would be fun to discuss some of the different ways that this limit can be computed.
Method #3. A trigonometric identity. When we see inside of an integral, one kneejerk reaction is to try the trigonometric substitution
. So let’s use this here. Also, since
, we can change the limit to be
:
.
The following problem appeared on the American High School Mathematics Examination (now called the AMC 12) in 1988:
If
, what is
?
When I presented this problem to a group of students, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of creativity shown when solving this problem.
Yesterday, I presented a solution using a Pythagorean identity, but I was unable to be certain if the final answer was a positive or negative without drawing a picture. Here’s a third solution that also use a Pythagorean trig identity but avoids this difficulty. Again, I begin by squaring both sides.
Yesterday, I used the Pythagorean identity again to find . Today, I’ll instead plug back into the original equation
:
Unlike the example yesterday, the signs of and
must agree. That is, if
, then
must also be positive. On the other hand, if
, then
must also be negative.
If they’re both positive, then
,
and if they’re both negative, then
.
Either way, the answer must be .
This is definitely superior to the solution provided in yesterday’s post, as there’s absolutely no doubt that the product must be positive.
The following problem appeared on the American High School Mathematics Examination (now called the AMC 12) in 1988:
If
, what is
?
When I presented this problem to a group of students, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of creativity shown when solving this problem.
Yesterday, I presented a solution using triangles. Here’s a second solution that I received: begin by squaring both sides and using a Pythagorean trig identity.
We use the Pythagorean identity again to find :
Therefore, we know that
,
so the answer is either or
. However, this was a multiple-choice contest problem and
was not listed as a possible answer, and so the answer must be
.
For a contest problem, the above logic makes perfect sense. However, the last step definitely plays to the fact that this was a multiple-choice problem, and the concluding step would not have been possible had
been given as an option.
Amazingly, the integral below has a simple solution:
Even more amazingly, the integral ultimately does not depend on the parameter
. For several hours, I tried to figure out a way to demonstrate that
is independent of
, but I couldn’t figure out a way to do this without substantially simplifying the integral, but I’ve been unable to do so (at least so far).
So here’s what I have been able to develop to prove that is independent of
without directly computing the integral
.
Earlier in this series, I showed that
Yesterday, I showed used the substitution to show that
was independent of
. Today, I’ll use a different method to establish the same result. Let
.
Notice that I’ve written this integral as a function of the parameter . I will demonstrate that
, so that
is a constant with respect to
. In other words,
does not depend on
.
To do this, I differentiate under the integral sign with respect to (as opposed to
) using the Quotient Rule:
I now apply the trigonometric substitution , so that
and
The endpoints of integration change from to
, and so
.
I’m not completely thrilled with this demonstration that is independent of
, mostly because I had to do so much simplification of the integral
to get this result. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, I’d love to figure out a way to directly start with
and demonstrate that is independent of
, perhaps by differentiating
with respect to
and demonstrating that the resulting integral must be equal to 0. However, despite several hours of trying, I’ve not been able to establish this result without simplifying
first.
Amazingly, the integral below has a simple solution:
Even more amazingly, the integral ultimately does not depend on the parameter
. For several hours, I tried to figure out a way to demonstrate that
is independent of
, but I couldn’t figure out a way to do this without substantially simplifying the integral, but I’ve been unable to do so (at least so far).
So here’s what I have been able to develop to prove that is independent of
without directly computing the integral
.
Earlier in this series, I showed that
I now multiply the top and bottom of this last integral by :
I now employ the substitution , so that
. Since
, the endpoints of integration do not change, and so
.
This final integral is independent of .