Trying to find math inside everything else

Posts tagged ‘common core geometry’

One Problem, Eight Ways

I had a pretty good lesson recently that I wanted to share. It was at the end of my quadrilaterals unit, and so we were working on coordinate proofs. I love coordinate proofs because you can get so much information from just a pair of coordinates, which lends itself to lots of different ways of solving the same problem. Add to that how many different ways there are to prove something is a square, and we have the start of something good.

I gave the students the above sheet, starting off with some noticing/wondering about the graphed figure. Then I assigned each table a different method to prove that the quadrilateral is a square. Each group was off to their whiteboards to get started.

IMG_20180308_135259 (1)

It was really great to see each group discussing the problem so intently, and it reminded me how easy it is to facilitate discussion when up at the vertical whiteboards. Afterwards, the students went around in a gallery walk to compare their proofs to the other methods. They analyzed how they were similar, how they were different, and thought about which method they might prefer in the future. (Some comments included things like preferring method 2 because it only involved slopes, even though it involves more lines.)

The whole lesson went so smoothly and had tons of intra- and inter-group discussion. Need to use the structure again.


Circles, Lines, and Angles

My math coach gave me this idea as we were planning my Circles unit. I think it went fairly well, so I’ll share it here. The idea is that we have, essentially, three basic objects that we’ve combined in different ways in geometry: circles, lines (including segments), and angles. So, as an opening activity to the unit, the task was this:

“Think of as many ways as possible to combine those three objects.”

First they brainstormed individually, as I reminded them that they can use multiple lines or angles or circles if they wanted. Then they went up to groups and made a master list per pair or group, eliminating ones that were “pretty  much” the same. I gave them some vocabulary based on what I saw they drew, and they had to use that vocabulary to describe what each drawing had. Finally, they chose one example and created one neat, fully correct example, in color that we combined into class posters. (I approved what they chose, to ensure a variety of possible layouts.)

20160414_144226_HDR 20160415_075653_HDR

Between my two classes, they came up with almost every scenario I could think of that we would learn in the unit, with the exception of Tangent Line & Radius, which I drew and put in myself. Now they are hanging in the classroom, acting as a guide for our journey into circles.

Quadrilateral Congruence

Stressful as it is, I am loving teaching new courses. When I first start teaching, I felt like I was learning new stuff all the time, stuff about algebra (and how it connects to other courses) that I didn’t know I didn’t know, and now it keeps happening with geometry, especially with the more transformational tinge CC geometry has.

One of the things that struck me was, last week, when I used this Illustrative Mathematics task as a follow-up to my lesson about the diagonals of quadrilaterals. I feel like the understanding I had internalized that you can prove triangles congruent with less information because they are rigid structures, but quadrilaterals are not, so there are no quadrilateral congruence theorems. But I realized that’s not true.

Last time, we constructed all of the special quadrilaterals by taking a triangle and applying a rigid motion transformation. That meant that every special quadrilateral can be split into two congruent triangles. Therefore, if you had enough information to prove one pair of triangles is congruent, you could prove the whole quadrilaterals are congruent.

Parallelogram SSSS

So if we’re looking at SSSS in terms of the triangles, we really only know two sides of the triangles. Since that’s not information to prove the triangles congruent, then it’s not enough for the parallelograms. But SAS is enough for the triangles, so it’s enough for the parallelograms.

Isosceles Trapezoid SSA

Here’s a non-parallelogram example. Here are two isosceles trapezoids with the same diagonals, same legs, and the same angle between the diagonals and one of the bases, but the trapezoids are not congruent. But that’s because, when you look at the triangles, we have Angle-Side-Side, which we all know is not a congruence theorem. If, instead, we had had SSS (a leg, a base, and a diagonal), then they would be congruent.