Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: trapezoid clarification
Replies: 55   Last Post: Apr 24, 2017 2:30 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 gWilkie@highlands.com Posts: 249 Registered: 2/18/05
Re: trapezoid clarification
Posted: May 27, 2014 10:33 PM
 att1.html (4.6 K)

Inclusive, exclusive, reclusive ... hopefully there will be no questions
either test ... you can't have one definition for the common core test and
another definition for the regents test ... look at all the discussion we
are having ... and there are plenty of teachers that don't even realize
there is a different definition ... and we still have not fine tuned the
isosceles trapezoid ...

Here is what I get - but of course I could be wrong

All parallelograms, rectangles, rhombuses and squares are trapezoids. Some
trapezoids are parallelograms, rectangles, rhombuses and squares.

All rectangles, rhombuses and squares are isosceles trapezoids. Some
isosceles trapezoids are rectangles, rhombuses and squares.

Proofs can now include the word 'trapezoid' ie. A rhombus is an isosceles
trapezoid with the diagonals perpendicular to each other.

I wish the state would come out with the conversion score key before the
regents but I know that should happen but will not. I wish all parts of
these tests were open to the public - we need to work on SED to make that
happen ... if we expect to 1. help students then we need to know what they
got wrong - not a topic but the question and the student response 2. help
teachers improve instruction then we need to be informed what our students
understood and did not understand 3. have faith that the tests are valid
and reliable - we will never know if there are errors if we don't see them
(there have been mistakes in the past).

I will have good thoughts for the students and teachers going through the
common core test and possibly the regents.

As always,
Grace Wilkie

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Elaine Zseller <EZseller@nasboces.org>wrote:

> The inclusive definition of trapezoid would classify rectangles and
> squares as isosceles trapezoids. An Isosceles trapezoid has congruent base
> angles and at least one pair of parallel sides. Rectangles and squares fit
> these more restrictive criteria. All parallelograms are trapezoids but all
> parallelograms do not fit the more restrictive criteria of an isosceles
> trapezoid.
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org [mailto:owner-nyshsmath@mathforum.org]
> On Behalf Of Jennifer Sauer
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:38 PM
> To: nyshsmath@mathforum.org
> Subject: Re: trapezoid clarification
>
> According to the website below, when using the inclusive definition of a
> trapezoid, an isosceles trapeziod is still defined as a "strict" trapezoid
> (exclusive definition) with congruent legs. Therefore squares and
> rectangles would not be included. Does that agree with the CCSS definition?
>
>
> http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m444a00/syl/class/trapezoids/Trapezoids.html
> *******************************************************************
> * To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message
> * "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org
> *
> * http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=671
> *******************************************************************
> *******************************************************************
> * To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message
> * "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to majordomo@mathforum.org
> *