Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Geometry #21
Posted:
Aug 19, 2011 11:57 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree about the isosceles trapezoid ... The point I was making is that
different states consider a parallelogram and trapezoid ... and I was
concerned about future tests that will go across state lines ... we should
all agree on a definition ...Grace Wilkie
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Jonathan <jd2718@gmail.com> wrote:
> The use of the term "isosceles trapezoid" presupposes that exactly one pair
> of sides is parallel. But we do not expect that level of analysis from
> students on state tests.
>
> In this case there was a different problem - a conversational register used
> in formal context, confounding the ideas of "some" and "all." They've made
> this sort of error in the past, as well. I believe it is even goes back to
> the beginning of Math A (I don't think it showed up before that).
>
>
> Jonathan Halabi
> HS of American Studies
> the Bronx
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Grace Wilkie <gwilkie@highlands.com>wrote:
>
>> I remember having so many conversations about the trapezoid with a person
>> outside of NY ...
>>
>> There is also some disagreement on the allowed number of parallel sides in
>> a trapezoid. At issue is whether parallelograms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelogram>,
>> which have two pairs of parallel sides, should be counted as trapezoids.
>> Some authors[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoid#cite_note-1>define a trapezoid as a quadrilateral having
>> *exactly* one pair of parallel sides, thereby excluding parallelograms.
>> Other authors[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoid#cite_note-Mathworld-2>define a trapezoid as a quadrilateral with
>> *at least* one pair of parallel sides, making the parallelogram a special
>> type of trapezoid (along with the rhombus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombus>,
>> the rectangle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle> and the square<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_%28geometry%29>).
>>
>>
>> Where we will have a test that will be used in many states we must make
>> sure we are all working from the same definition ...
>>
>> Grace
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, <elizwaite@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed...I see what you're saying now...
>>> You would have preferred the question said The quadrilateral *could be*and then the choices.
>>> Liz Waite
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan <jd2718@gmail.com>
>>> To: nyshsmath <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
>>> Sent: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 4:45 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Geometry #21
>>>
>>> There's clearly a best answer. I didn't mean to raise it as a grading
>>> issue. It is, rather, a quality issue.
>>>
>>> I am concerned that this is yet again a poorly written question. They've
>>> chosen what reads like universal language, but intended that it apply to a
>>> particular example.
>>>
>>> And this is in a geometry course, the primary place in secondary
>>> mathematics where the distinctions between "all" and "some" and between
>>> "always," "sometimes," and "never" are taught and reinforced.
>>>
>>> Jonathan Halabi
>>> HS of American Studies
>>> the Bronx
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM, <lboyce@pbcschools.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the case of multiple choice questions I teach my students to choose
>>>> the BEST answer from the choices given.
>>>>
>>>> Loretta Boyce
>>>> Mathematics Teacher
>>>> Dana L West Jr Sr High School
>>>> 30 Maple Ave
>>>> Port Byron, NY 13140
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org wrote: -----
>>>>
>>>> To: "nyshsmath@mathforum.org" <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
>>>> <nyshsmath@mathforum.org> <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
>>>> From: Jonathan **
>>>> Sent by: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org
>>>> Date: 08/18/2011 12:56PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Geometry #21
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could be an isosceles trapezoid, but that's not the question as
>>>> asked. We really should be expecting mathematically precise language.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2011, at 12:08 PM, elizwaite@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right...but were you saying that out of the 4 choices none were
>>>> correct?
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jonathan <jd2718@gmail.com>
>>>> To: nyshsmath <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
>>>> Sent: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 10:52 am
>>>> Subject: Re: Geometry #21
>>>>
>>>> In a kite, neither pair of sides is parallel.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2011, at 10:32 AM, <elizwaite@aol.com>elizwaite@aol.comwrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe isosceles trapezoid is correct. Although I do recall an
>>>> earlier conversation on this list from several years ago where a few people
>>>> defined a trapezoid as a quadrilateral with AT LEAST one pair of parallel
>>>> sides where most of us used EXACTLY one pair of parallel sides. This would
>>>> make a difference, I think.
>>>> Liz Waite
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jonathan < <jd2718@gmail.com>jd2718@gmail.com>
>>>> To: nyshsmath < <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
>>>> Sent: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 10:24 am
>>>> Subject: Geometry #21
>>>>
>>>> The diagonals of a quadrilateral are congruent but do not bisect eac
>>>> other. The quadrilateral is:
>>>>
>>>> Iso trapezoid
>>>> Parallelogram
>>>> Rectangle
>>>> Rhombus
>>>>
>>>> But none of these are necessarily correct (kite, anyone?)
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Iva Jean Tennant < <tennantij@aol.com><tennantij@aol.com>
>>>> tennantij@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All-
>>>> Sorry this is a bit late, but I have been away for the last week. I hope
>>>> you are all enjoying some time off over the summer.
>>>> I know most of you have seen the news around the release of the PARCC
>>>> Model Content Frameworks for public comment. For those of you who have not,
>>>> read on.
>>>> · The Model Content Frameworks in Mathematics and English
>>>> language arts/literacy were released for public review on August 3rd,
>>>> after several rounds of feedback from the PARCC states. This public review
>>>> period is an opportunity for an even wider group of interested parties to
>>>> provide feedback on all parts of the frameworks, including the introductions
>>>> and the grade level analyses, which contain suggested areas of emphasis and
>>>> priority.
>>>> · By following the this link,
>>>> http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-content-frameworks, you will be able
>>>> to review the draft Model Content Frameworks and provide your feedback
>>>> through an on-line survey. *All feedback is due to PARCC by
>>>> Wednesday, August 17th.*
>>>> During this public review period, PARCC hopes that teachers in
>>>> particular will provide their feedback on the draft Model Content
>>>> Frameworks. While teachers have helped to develop the frameworks to this
>>>> point, the feedback of a broader group of educators is critical. The Model
>>>> Content Frameworks are being shared directly with NCTM, NCSM, NCTE, AFT, and
>>>> NEA, as well as others, so these organizations can share them with their
>>>> members, as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ·
>>>>
>>>> John Svendsen
>>>> Mathematics Associate
>>>> Office of Curriculum and Instruction
>>>> NYS Education Department
>>>> EB 320
>>>> Albany, N.Y. 12234
>>>> (518) 474-5922
>>>> (518) 486-1385 (fax)
>>>> <jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov> <jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov><jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov><jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov><jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov>
>>>> jsvendse@mail.nysed.gov
>>>> <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html>
>>>> http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/math/home.html
>>>> <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai> <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai><http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai>
>>>> www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> ******************************************************************* *
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message * "unsubscribe
>>>> nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org * * Read prior posts and download
>>>> attachments from the web archives at *
>>>> http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumIDg1*******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
