Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Professional Associations » nyshsmath

Topic: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jun 19, 2013 9:47 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Roberta M. Eisenberg

Posts: 40
Registered: 8/18/09
Re: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
Posted: May 1, 2013 6:00 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (12.5 K)

I started teaching in 1962, and the honors geometry class used a textbook that had that def. The regular geom. class had the usual def. It was confusing teaching both classes and remembering which def. to use in each class.

Bobbi Eisenberg

On May 1, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Robert Bieringer wrote:

> The differences in the fundamental definition of a trapezoid, I believe date back to Zalman Usiskin at the University of Chicago. The work by Dr. Usiskin led to the University School Mathematics Project
> [USMP] during the late 1960s into the 1970s and the "at least two parallel sides" definition, came out of those series of books. A reference I found just today, gives support to the point:
>
> http://casmusings.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/defining-trapezoids/
>
>
> Mr. Robert C. Bieringer
> Director of Mathematics K-12
> Bay Shore UFSD
> Bay Shore, New York 11706
>
> -----owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org wrote: -----
> To: "nyshsmath@mathforum.org" <nyshsmath@mathforum.org>
> From: Gene Jordan
> Sent by: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org
> Date: 05/01/2013 03:11PM
> Subject: RE: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
>
> Before we dive into the "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" trapezoid wars. I'm not sure anyone will be all right or all wrong on this, it sounds more like two well-grounded options.
>
> After hearing a great presentation by Brian Cohen at Rye Brook AMTNYS fall conference I wanted to run this by others for input:
>
> I think PARCC has higher level math supporting the inclusive side.
> However, our PK-5 teachers have textbooks (even CCSS aligned) that still use the exclusive rule. Even though text books aren't authoritative, they are widely used and matches what is being taught.
> Browsing through the latest textbook samples I have, Glencoe (2013) uses exclusive definition and one of Pearson's uses inclusive and others are vague.
>
>
> I thought this was on Algebra or geometry regents before with the inclusive definition?
>
> I also think there was a group working on CCLS glossary, not affiliated with State Ed anyone heard anything about this?
>
> ~Gene Jordan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org [mailto:owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org] On Behalf Of Tammy Woodard
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:43 PM
> To: nyshsmath@mathforum.org
> Subject: RE: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
>
> This definition holds when it comes to finding area of a parallelogram, in which you use the trapezoid formula. No matter what area formula, parallelogram or trapezoid, you would get the same answer.
>
> Tammy M. Woodard
> Mathematics Teacher Scarlet Team- EDMS
> Elmira Express Indoor Varsity Assistant Track & Field Coach Elmira Express Girls JV Lacrosse Head Coach NYLAP Instructor - Texas Instruments Ernie Davis Middle School
> 610 Lake Street
> Elmira, NY 14901
> (607) 735-3400
> twoodard@elmiracityschools.com
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org [owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org] on behalf of Elliott Bird [Elliott.Bird@liu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:47 PM
> To: nyshsmath@mathforum.org
> Subject: RE: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
>
> I think it's valuable that you saw this. I hope others will become aware as well. The definition you saw in the 2005 glossary is an old one, and New York State has stayed with it at least up until that time.
>
> However, many states and countries and publishers have been using the new definition (at least two parallel sides) for a long time. The newer definition is more consistent with other mathematical definitions like that of isosceles triangle--at least two congruent sides. Then an equilateral triangle is also isosceles. Similarly, with the newer definition of trapezoid, every parallelogram is also a trapezoid.
>
> Elliott Bird
> Consultant in Mathematics Education
> Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus L.I.U.
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org [owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org] on behalf of Holly Thomas [hollythomas@mail.ircsd.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:05 PM
> To: nyshsmath@mathforum.org
> Subject: PARCC Definition of Trapezoid
>
> I've been reviewing recently released PARCC documents and was confused that PARCC is defining a trapezoid as having "at least one pair of parallel sides". However, the most recent definition I can find issued by NYS is in the 2005 Standards math glossary, in which a trapezoid is defined as having exactly one pair of parallel sides. Since this will impact instruction from Grade 3 on, I'm curious is anyone else is aware of this issue, or any discussions surrounding it.
>
> Holly Thomas
> Math Coach
> Indian River Central School District
> Philadelphia, NY
> *******************************************************************
> * 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?forumID=671
> *******************************************************************
> *******************************************************************
> * 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?forumID=671
> *******************************************************************
> *******************************************************************
> * 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?forumID=671
> *******************************************************************
>
> *******************************************************************
> * 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?forumID=671
> *******************************************************************
> ******************************************************************* * 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 *******************************************************************





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.