Proof and Consequences

A conversation was taking place over at Dan Meyer’s Blog (http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=17964) about proofs, which is a topic that I find myself faced with about this time every year.

This isn’t a new conundrum for me. I’ve been working for while now trying to make this idea of proof, which, when compared to the typical form of textbook Algebra I should be an easier sell. But it just isn’t.

Here are some discussions of my previous attempts to sell it. Posts from Nov 2, 2012, Nov 16, 2012, Dec 7. 2012 are a few examples of my thoughts from around a year ago when geometry hit this place last year.

The problem I have is that the academic norms seem to prefer deductive reasoning to inductive and use of the theorem names. Those two things seem important to decide on before starting the journey of proof. If you are going to prefer deductive measurements, it rules out using measurements in proofs and it requires a lot more formal geometric language.

The problem that I see is that to rule out measurements (at least from the very beginning) and to strongly increase the formal geometric language in a way that makes deductive proofs possible from the very introduction of proofs creates… well… what Christopher Danielson is quoted as saying in Meyer’s post… “one of the most lifeless topics in all of mathematics.”

In order to breathe life into the topic, from the experience I’ve had, you need to let students engage in ways that make sense to them at first. The target to start the process is simply to get them comfortable with the idea of designing a functional persuasive argument about a mathematical situation. This requires recognizing that they need to start with a clearly stated claim (preferably something that is provable) and then start supporting it.

I find it helpful to let them pull measurements from pictures first and use those in the proof. The idea of comparing two things by length and NOT measuring them to get the length seems to a lot of kids like we are making the math difficult simply because we want it to be difficult. If they sense there is an easier way to solve a problem, then the explanation for why that method is against the rules had better be very strong, or else buy-in is going to suffer some pretty heavy causalities.

Once they get the hang of making an argument, then we can start by having discussions about what kinds of evidence are more compelling than others. This is usually where the students can figure out for themselves that each piece of information needs its own bit of mathematical support.

Next we can start deliberately exposing the students to different ways of proving similar situations. Triangle congruence seems to be a popular choice. We can have conversations about proving a rigid motion or proving pairs of sides and angles. Eventually certain kinds of explanations become more and more cumbersome. For example, using definition of congruent triangles to prove that two triangles are congruent as shown here:

Do we really need to keep going to find the three pairs of congruent angles?

Do we really need to keep going to find the three pairs of congruent angles?

Then, we can start pushing into shortcut methods. Mostly because those angles are going to be somewhat tricky to find (and why do more work than you need to… the students DEFINITELY identify with that.)

By using this method, I am trying to create what I’ve heard Meyer call “an intellectual need” for additional methods to prove this claim. (Keyword: trying… not sure how successful it is, but I’m trying.)

Then, that transitions fairly smoothly into stuff like this:

2013-10-28 08.28.32

… where we standardize the side lengths of two different triangles and see how many different triangles we can make and in what ways they are different.

Now, the tougher question is whether or not you allow the class consensus following the “Straw Triangle Activity” (which was a gem that came out of Holt Geometry, Chapter 3) to count as proof of the SSS theorem. In an academic sense, now we should “formally prove” SSS theorem. To most of the students, it’s settled. Three sides paired up means the triangles are congruent. What are we risking by avoiding the formal SSS proof? Do we risk giving the impression that straws and string are formal mathematical tools? But wait… aren’t they? What do we risk by doing the formal SSS proof? Do we risk our precious classroom energy by running them through an exercise there isn’t a lot of authentic need for right now?

Am I able to say that this is the definite recipe for breathing life into geometry proofs? Not even close. I am sure there are students who are completely uninspired by this. I can say using anecdotal evidence that engagement seems significantly and satisfyingly higher then when we used to run deductive two-column proofs at students from the very beginning.

But, we’ll have to see what the consequences are as we keep going.

Penny Circles

This discussion represents the final Makeover Monday Problem of the Year. I must admit, I found this problem to be easily the most engaging for me simply as a curious math learner. (Here’s  the original problem posted by Mr. Meyer.)

Now, I will admit that this is going to be more of a discussion of my experiences exploring this problem and, if you get lucky, I might come up with a recommendation somewhere toward the end.

The problem presents a rather interesting set up: filling up circles with pennies, making predictions, modeling with data, best fit functions. Lots of different entry points and possible rabbit holes to get lost in.

First change was that my circles were not created by radii of increasing inches. For the record, I can’t quite explain why I chose to make that change. Instead, I used penny-widths. Circle one had a radius of one penny-width. Circle two’s radius of two penny-widths. Circle three’s radius… you get the idea.

It looked like this:

I started with 4 circles with radii based on penny width.

I started with 4 circles with radii based on penny width.

Note: I understand the circles look sloppy. I had wonderful, compass-drawn circles ready to go and my camera wasn’t playing nice with the pencil lines. So, I chose to trace them with a Sharpie freehand, which… yeah.

Next, I kept the part of the problem that included filling each circle up with pennies.

It looked like this:

Penny Area 1

Then I filled them with as many pennies as I could

Then I filled them with as many pennies as I could

Here’s where the fun began.

I saw a handful of different interesting patterns that were taking place. If we stay with the theme of the original problem, then we’d be comparing the radius of each circle to the penny capacity, which would be fairly satisfying for me as an instructor watching the students decide how to model, predict, and then deciding whether or not it was worth it to to build circles 5, 10, or 20, or if they can develop a way to be sure of their predictions without constructing it.

But, I also noticed that by switching to the radius measured in penny-widths, the areas began to be covered by concentric penny-circles. So, we could discuss how predicting the number of pennies it would take to create the outside layer of pennies. Or we could use that relationship as a method for developing our explicit formula (should the students decide to do that).

So, if I am designing this activity, I feel like the original learning targets are too focused and specific. I want the students to be able to use inductive reasoning to predict. Simple as that. If they find that using a quadratic model is the most accurate, then cheers to them, but this problem has so much more to offer than a procedural I-do-you-do button pushing a TI-84.

First, I’d start with them building their circles using a compass and some pennies. Build the first four and fill them in. I’m quite certain that the whole experience of this problem changes if I leave the students to explore some photos of the my circles. They need to build their own. Plus, that presents a low entry point. Hard to get intimidated lining up pennies on a paper (although, I have plenty of student intimidated by compasses).

Next, I think that I would be if I simply asked them to tell me how many pennies they would need to build circle five and to “prove” their answer, I believe we would see a fair amount of inductive reasoning arguments that don’t all agree. The students battle it out to either consensus or stale-mate and then we build it and test. It should be said, though, that as they are building the first four and filling them in, I’d be all ears wandering about waiting for the students to make observations that can turn into hooks and discussion entry points.

Then I would drop circle ten on them and repeat the process. This is where the students might try to continue to use iterations if they can figure out a pattern. Some will model with the graphing calculators (in the style the original problem prefers). I’m not sure that I have a preference, although I would certainly be strategic in trying to get as many different methods discussed as possible.

Then, when they have come to an agreement on circle ten, I’d move to circle 20 and offer some kind of a reward if the class can agree on the right answer within an agreed margin of error. Then, we’d build it and test (not sure of the logistics of that, but I think it’s important).

All that having been said, I see an opportunity to engage this in a different manner by lining the circumference of the increasingly-bigger circles with pennies so that the circle was passing though the middle of the pennies and seeing how, as the circles got bigger, how the relationship of the number of pennies in the radius compared to the number of pennies in the circumference. I suspect it could become an interesting study on asymptotic lines.

It just seems like this particular situation has, as Dan put it, “lots to love” and “lots to chew on.”

Making over another typical geometry problem

It’s time to look at another typical geometry problem to make over. This time Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer) presented this problem for revision.

Dan decided to go in this direction for the revision, which, for the record I really like. I would encourage you to check it out.

I took a try at it, too. I’ll let you decide which you like better.

I like this problem’s basic core idea. Looking at the volume of a sphere (the meatball) and the volume of the cylinder (the cooking pot), in general, this is a pretty tasty set-up (pun intended). Especially considering that I am always a fan of problems that make use of food.

But…

For this problem, food and cooking were actually more of a problem that a support.

First, the cooking pot is sitting on a hot burner and I’ll be the first to tell you, a cooking pot doesn’t have to be full to spill over. So, the question of whether or not sauce will spill over is a bit more complicated that it might seem at first.

Second, meatballs aren’t spheres. They are irregular and rarely are two of them congruent.

So, my first thought was to choose spherical objects that are all congruent: for example, baseballs. Coaches regularly carry baseballs around in 5-gallon buckets, so there is our cylindrical container.

And I figured I’d deliver the task in a video simply because videos tend to improve engagement on their own.

Now, once I made the video (and some meaningful conversation was had among those who are better at this than I am) I found that my task had one glaring drawback. When you put baseballs in a bucket, they don’t pack tightly. There is air between them. A lot of it, in fact.

So, now it seems like if we are to use this video for instruction, we would need to change the question in to multiple parts.

1. How many baseballs can we fit into the bucket? (This would likely end up being a demo or a lab where we collect data. Tricky to calculate this.)

But then we supplement the question above by…

2. How much volume is wasted by packing that many baseballs in the 5-gallon bucket.

This would get back to the original content. Likely the cylindrical volume would need to a unit conversion, and then some analysis of the collective volume of the collection of baseballs.

Now, if we could ind a way to check it. The first thought I had was to fill the bucket with water. Put the baseballs in to displace the water out of the bucket. Take the soggy baseballs back out of the bucket. Find the volume of the water that’s left.

Problems with this idea: 1. Baseballs float which is going to effect the manner in which the water is displaced. 2. Baseballs absorb water. This means that some of the none displaced water would get removed with the baseballs and not counted.

Hmm… I thought of filling the bucket with baseballs and then topping the bucket off with sand. Which would solve both of the above problems, it would also give me an opportunity to make a beach trip.

Any other ideas out there?

Developing a Calculus Course – Where I’m at so far…

As I reported back in January, I am working on developing the next generation of calculus at Pennfield High School.

To say this is overwhelming is a bit of an understatement. But the support has been strong from the math edublogosphere. To Sam Shah, Jim Fowler, Shawn Cornally, Justin Lanier, and Amber Caldwell I owe a great deal of thanks. I couldn’t be doing this without you.

Here’s what I’ve gotten done so far. At this point, I feel like I have enough material to keep my student busy for four to five weeks. Thanks most to Sam Shah, I have one unit done. Including handouts, formative assessments and summative assessments.

Also, after examining the incredible amount of resources that I have been freely given, I have decided on a couple of structures including student self-assessment sheets (a structure popular in standards-based-grading) and Friday Free-For-Alls, which give the students the opportunity to look at problems that are likely an extension of their geometry, algebra II, pre-calculus or stats work, but they may want to try to employ some of their newly-acquired calculus tools to find a better (faster, more efficient, more accurate, more realistic) solution.

The handouts and problems for unit 1 are posted under “The Calculus Course” to the right. I look forward to your constructive feedback.

Once again folks, thanks for everything and I look forward to continuing to work with all of you.

 

Making over a typical geometry textbook problem

So, Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer) recently introduced Makeover Mondays where we, as a math blog community, makeover a series of textbook problems that have some potential as usable contexts, but have low impact delivery for engagement or cognitive demand.

This is my first attempt to offer something to the conversation.

So, here’s the first target:

Book Problem

So, here’s where my mind went in terms of making over this problem: First, the idea of “biggest bedroom” is a fairly appealing idea, except I don’t recall competing for biggest room with my friends. So, insert a new plot twist. Rodney and Emile are brother and sister.

Second, most of the competition for biggest room comes when the rooms are both empty. That is, move-in day. Most of my students are fairly well-acquainted with the idea of moving. So, remove the detached rectangles and insert a floor plan.

Floor Plan

Third, let’s add a bit of complexity. Both of the children move in with their own furniture, but, of course, with one being a girl and one being a boy, the furniture is not the same. Emile has this dresser and this bed. Rodney has a combo piece that includes both bed and dresser.

They are going to also move in with toys, a lamp, a chair for the bedtime book, among several other things.

Finally, the new task: You are the parent in charge of making the decision over who gets which room. Who gets which room?