You gave us good details, but I still have some questions. (This I have to get straight ;-))
(1) "Within each category there were items worth 1 pt, 2 pts, ..." Were there suggestions listed, specifics? Or did you find out after you found the items and points were being tallied? (2) Tell us Ruth Carver is going to post the worksheet directions and full teacher directions on the Web page the group is preparing (is that how you folks are sharing your activities? this gets confusing after a while).
How many polaroid cameras/film do you suppose most teachers would have to scrounge to do this great activity?
Denise Miller Cheshire,CT.................................................................
>We stopped work around 4 today for a shared activity led by Ruth Caver. >She broke us up into 5 groups, and explained that we'd be going on a >scavernger hunt. Each group would get a polaroid camera loaded with >enough film for 10 pictures, a list of geometric items to find >outside, and half an hour. There were 16 catergories, and we could >submit no more than 1 picture per category. Within each category, there >were items worth 1 point, 2 points, and 3 points--and the score was >doubled if we could find the items occuring naturally. My groups was >delighted with our first find--the veins on a plant growing in the >courtyard were rays which bisected complementary angles--6 points. We >spent a lot of time trying to find other items as good, and and just >made it back in time for our deadline. We thought we'd done pretty well >with 28 points, but another group had 42. > Then Ruth gave each group a peice of posterboard, a gluestick, >and an extensive list of geometry terms. Each group would get a point >for every word it could use in describing it's pictures (Only the first >usage counted). We made up some ground here, using 80 words, like >besector, obtuse, quadrilateral, etc. Unfortunately for our competitive >aspirations, another group managed to use 125 words. And so we came in >second overall.