Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: When math makes sense  w/ cooking, consruction
Posted:
May 20, 2013 3:43 PM


Adding an offline thread:
  Forwarded message 
Anna: I actually thought I was posting to the list .. oops.
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:33 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you want this on the list?
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Anna Roys <roys.anna@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that publishers can use "Common Core" > in their advertising and that it may indeed not be > fully aligned to these standards. Our district adopted > the common core standards and began reviewing various > curriculum last year. As a result of the process, Big > Ideas Math by Ron Larson and Laurie Boswell was > selected for 7th and 8th Grades > http://www.bigideasmath.com/ This school year I have > been using 6th Grade Prentice Hall Middle Grades, > common core curriculum. I am reviewing Big Ideas Math > trying to decide to migrate to it next year or not.
My point was not really that publishers would advertise misleadingly, but more that many perfectly conforming texts may not tout that fact. It's not relevant to their primary audience.
Maybe they were written pre common core, or are translations from other languages where "common core" is not used.
In my calculus classes in Jersey City, I'd sometimes base my lesson on translated Russian texts. I was not forced to just use one source for any of my math classes (this was a St. Sensible, not a New Jersey Public School).
You said you were looking at "Common Core Math" and I wondered what that could mean. I assumed it meant a text that advertised its conformance and/or affiliation with this particular subculture (the people who push that standard, an ethnic minority in my book).
> I have six charter school students, grades > 611. Five of these students score below proficiency on > standardized tests, have special needs and are on > active IEPs and one is at grade level. As a charter > school teacher I may select the curriculum I wish to > use, but it must at least adhere to common core, > however, I may use supplemental materials that exceed > the standards.
Yes that's good. From my angle the ethnicity behind "common core" is not especially strong in STEM. I would not consider these standards sufficient for any school I was designing or any curriculum I was crafting. I look down on the common core standards as the product of a generally inferior culture which I do not want to base my own culture on  it'd be too big a step backward.
I'm not against standards, I just might want to compete rather than conform to the socalled Common Core. E.g. in "my" curriculum it's essential to communicate that
(a) four equal radius balls pressed together form 4 vertexes of a tetrahedron with their four centers (duh) and (b) six of the samesized balls form an octahedron of precisely four times the tetrahedron's volume and (c) these two polyhedrons fill space in complement in a ratio of 2:1 (twice as many tets)
> I wonder how your lesson plans, problems and > assessments might look for (a) (b) and (c) above. Would > you be willing to give me some examples and point me to > some visuals that I may use with my students? > Thank you, Anna
Oh sure. We should start with some graphics:
http://www.n55.dk/manuals/FLOAT_PLAT/FLOAT_PLAT.html http://ajo.tabletoptelephone.com/~hopspage/Fuller.html http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/anthony/kites/tetra/bell/
This lesson plan from NCTM (below) is in the ball park, but is devoid of history, which would disqualify it "as is" (for me use), but I could see enhancing it to where it made more sense in this larger context of structural chemistry, architecture, space frame design etc.
http://illuminations.nctm.or/LessonDetail.aspx?id=L639
What I'd do with smaller children (preschool) is pour grain, beans or rice between "mixing bowls" to show the volume relationships. I done this with Montessori school kids.
More intuitive demonstrations of the precise 1:4 volume relationship (tetrahedron:octahedron) are possible using slicing / animation (maybe 4th grade), although of course there's always basic algebra and volume formulas (8th grade).
In general I advocate a spiraling approach wherein these topics get revisited again and again from different angles and with different treatments. But I like to see these core STEM themes started early.
As far as I'm concerned "common core" is not up to date enough w/r to basic geometry and would not be suitable as a basis for more serious STEM curricula.
Slides from my own Flickr stash:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirbyurner/5436831548/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirbyurner/5436220385/in/photostream/
As you can see, I've used these with Saturday Academy in the context of my Martian Math courses etc.
Kirby
Message was edited by: kirby urner



