Archive

Archive for the ‘GCSE’ Category

Nice area puzzle

April 23, 2019 2 comments

Yesterday evening I came across this lovely area puzzle on twitter:

The puzzle is from Gerry McNally (@mcnally_gerry) he says its his first, and I hope that’s “first of many”.

I reached for the nearest pen and paper and had a quick go:

As you can see, I misread the puzzle originally and thought the lower quadrilateral was a square. The large triangle is isosceles as given in the question. This allowed me to use the properties of similar triangles and the base lengths given to work out the areas of the square, both right angled triangles and the whole triangle. This then allowed me to calculate the area of the shaded quadrilateral and hence that area as a fraction of the whole.

Then I went to tweet my solution to Gerry and realised that nowhere does it say that the bottom quadrilateral is a square. I had added an assumption. This made me ponder the question some more. Instincts told me that it didn’t have to be a square, but that the solution would be the sane whether it was a square or not. But I didn’t want to leave it at that, I wanted to be sure, so I had another go.

I sketched out the triangle again:

This time I called the height of the rectangle x.

This made it trivial to find the area’s of the rectangle and the triangle GCD. Triangle HAB was easy enough to find using similar triangle properties.

and then I found the area of the whole shape again using similarity to discover the height.

This allowed me to find the shaded area:

Then when I put it as a fraction the xs cancelled and it of course reduced to the same answer.

I really like this puzzle, and would be interested to see how you approached it, please let me know in the comments or on social media.

Advertisements

Late tiering decisions

March 20, 2019 1 comment

Last week year 11 sat their mocks. Some did really well, others did really poorly. It’s the latter group that has me purplexed. Students sitting the higher tier paper but only scoring single digits per paper, or even earlt teens per paper. What to do with them?

Some of them asked if they could move to foundation, I think its best for them. 1 student got 32 marks over 3 higher papers, did the 3 foundation and was well over 100. 1 student got 40 marks over 3 higher papers spent 30 mins in a foundation paper and got 60 marks. The grade 5s they want seem more achievable on foundation.

My issue lies with a few students desperate to do higher and try for 6s. Scoring around 50 marks over 3 higher papers it seems a risk. But having taught them both i feel that it’s within their capabilities. But from November to march they have made only tiny gains in marks. On the ine hand, foundation means they cant get a 6 and for at least one of them means rethinking post 16 choices, but on the other hand sitting higher means they might end up with only a 4 or less and thst would mean rethinking post 16 again. It’s tricky, any thoughts are welcomed.

Categories: #MTBoS, Curriculum, GCSE, KS3 Tags: , , ,

Proof by markscheme

March 16, 2019 2 comments

While marking my Y11 mocks this week I came across this nice algebraic proof question:

The first student had not attempted it. While looking at it I ran through it quickly in my head. Here is the method i used jotted down:

I thought, “what a nice simple proof”. Then I looked at the markscheme:

There seemed no provision made in the markscheme for what I had done. (Edit: It is there, my brain obviously just skipped past it) How did you approach this question? Please let me know via the comments or social media.

Anyway, some of my students gave some great answers. None of them took my approach, but some used the same as the markscheme:

And one daredevil even attempted a geometric proof…….

Cereal Percentages

March 13, 2019 Leave a comment

This week my Y11s are sitting mock exams. One of the questions that came up on paper 1 stumped a lot them.

They came out if the exam on monday, and said the paper was very difficult. One of them asked me one of the questions:

“Sir, if you have a box of cereal and increase it by 25% but keep the price the same, what percentage would you need to decrease the price of the original box by to get the same value?”

I immediately said “20%”, an answer which flummoxed the student and the others stood around. They couldn’t work out how I had got that answer, never mind so quickly.

I tried to explain it to them, but in that moment, on the corridor, I didn’t do a very good job. For me, it was intuitive. A 25% increase and a 20% decrease would yield the same value as in one you are changing the top of a fraction and the other the bottom of a fraction so you need to use the reciprocal, 4/5 is the reciprocal of 5/4 and 4/5 is 80% hence it needs to be a 20% decrease. Cue blank looks and pained expressions. I was seeing the students again later in an intervention session so I promised to go through it in more detail then.

I talked about the idea of value, how you could consider mass/price and get grams per penny – how many grams for each penny you spend – or you could consider price/mass and get penny per grams – how much you pay per gram. I said either of these would give an idea of value and you can use either in a best value problem.

I showed them the idea of the fraction, said you could call the price x and the size y.

The starting scenario is:

y/x

The posed scenario is:

1.25y/x

but we know 1.25 is 5/4 so that becomes:

(5/4)y / x

which in turn is:

5y/4x

I then showed that the second scenario meant getting to the same value but altering x. To do this you would need to mutiply x by 4/5:

y/(x(4/5))

(y/x)÷(4/5)

(y/x) × (5/4)

5y/4x

This managed to show some of them what was going on, but others still massively struggled. I tried showing them with numbers. 100 grams for £1. This again had an effect for some but still left others blank.

I’m now racking my brains for another way to explain it. If you have a better explanation, please let me know in the comments of via social media!

Categories: #MTBoS, GCSE, Maths Tags: , , ,

Saturday puzzle

December 2, 2017 2 comments

One of the first things I saw this morning when I awoke was this post from solve my maths on facebook:

That’s interesting I thought, so I thought it have a go.

The radius is given to be 2. So we have an equilateral triangle side length 2. Using my knowledge of triangle and exact trig ratios I know the height of such a triangle is root 3 and as such so is the area. 

Similarly, as the diagonal of the rectangle is 2 and the short side is 1 we can work out from Pythagoras’s Theorem that the longer side is root 3. And again it follows that so is the area.

Lastly we have the square, the diagonal is 2 and as such each side must be root 2, again this is evident from Pythagoras’s Theorem  this gives us an area of 2.

Which leaves us a nice product of the areas as 6.

I think that is correct, I’ve justvwoken up nd this post has been my working, so do about up if you spot an error. And I’d love to hear if youbsolved it a different way.

Thoughts on the understanding paradox and introducing trigonometry

July 14, 2017 4 comments

Recently I read a blog entitled “The understanding paradox” (William, 2017) which discussed the idea of maths teaching and put forward the idea that actually, it is better to bypass understanding when first teaching a topic and then fill that understanding in later. This was then applied to the teaching of right angled triangle trigonometry in an example that I found confusing to say the least.

The author, Rufus William, suggested that when teaching trig for the first time we should be solely teaching procedurally using SOHCAHTOA as a mnemonic, but then went on to say we shouldn’t be discussing ratio or similarity and how that links until later on. This confused me as the mnemonic SOHCAHTOA is designed to help you remember the trig ratios. I.e. Sine is the ratio of the opposite side over the hypotenuse. Just by teaching that you ARE teaching the trig ratios and purely by the fact that you are teaching the students that this will work for all right angled triangles you are telling the students that the ratios are the same for any triangle with the same angle no matter what the length of the sides are. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SIMILAR TRIANGLES.

This perplexed me a lot and I spent a lot of time thinking about it and asking the author to elaborate on what he meant. The only way I can fathom to teach this without reference to ratio and similarity would be to say: ” “SOHCAHTOA” it gives you 3 triangles. Label the sides circle them to see which triangle you use. Put numbers in, cover the missing one, its either a divide or a times”. To me this seems like a backwards way to go about things. It feels like you are teaching them unnecessary procedures to avoid discussing the underlying concepts of trigonometry, and it doesn’t really make sense to me.

I find that by the time students reach right angled triangle trigonometry they have already met the concept of similarity, I like to use this a way in to discussing the topic and to show that ratio of two sides that are the same in relation to an angle will be the same for all similar triangles. Students will have always encountered simplifying fractions before they meet trig and as such can see why this is. This is when I specifically discuss the sine, cosine and tangent ratios and introduce the procedural manner in which they can solve the problems, although I do avoid the dreaded formula triangles (for many reasons which I have blogged about here). I will show them some common mnemonics, and SOHCAHTOA is one of them. I’m not a fan of mnemonics personally, I’ve never found them that useful except for musical ones, but I know a lot of people do.

Rufus does make some salient points in his post about teachers who refuse to allow students to memorise things and the dangers this will have on learning. Although I’m not entirely sure that they exist, and if they do I certainly don’t think there are many of them. I’ve certainly never met any.

He also suggests that students cannot have a full understanding of the ins and outs of trigonometry when they first meet it. I would very much agree with him in that respect, I know many people who have taught trigonometry for decades and still don’t, but I don’t think that means we have to bypass all information.

Reference List:

Cavadino, S.R. 2014. Formula Triangles. 12th October. Cavmaths. [online] accessed 14th July 2017. available: https://cavmaths.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/formula-triangles/

Cavadino, S.R. 2016. Catchy Mnemonics. 16th September. Cavmaths. [Online] accessed 14th July. Available: https://cavmaths.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/catchy-mnemonics/

William, R. 2017. The understanding paradox. 7th July. No easy answers. [online] accessed 14th July 2017. available: https://noeasyanswerseducation.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/the-understanding-paradox/

 

Group Work Issues

July 14, 2017 3 comments

Recently I wrote this post (2017) that highlights various ways that I can see group work being of benefit to students study in mathematics.  In the post I allude to there being many issues around group work that can have a detrimental effect on the learning of the students and I intend to explore them a little further here.

The benefits of group work can be vast, and are often tied to the discussion around the mathematics involved in a way consistent with the writings of Hodgen and Marshall (2005), Mortimer and Scott (2003), Piaget (1970), Simmons (1993), Skemp (1987) and Vygotsky (1962) amongst others. These perceived benefits give the students a chance to try things, make mistakes, bounce ideas around and then find their way through together. Seeing the links between the things they know and its application within new contexts or the links between different areas of maths.

So what are the down sides?

Good et al. (1992) warn that group work can reinforce and perpetuate misconceptions. This is an idea that is also expressed by von Duyke and Matsov (2015) who feel that the teacher should be able to step in and correct any misconceptions that the students express, although this would be difficult in a classroom where a number of groups are working simultaneously and it also goes against the feelings expressed by some researchers, such as Pearcy (2015), that students should be allowed to get stuck and not receive hints. This is a tricky one to balance. As teachers we clearly do not want misconceptions becoming embedded within the minds of our students, but we do want to allow them time to struggle and to really get to grips with the maths. I try to circulate and address misconceptions when they arise but in a manner that allows students to see why they are wrong, but not give them the correct answer.

Another potential pitfall of group work is related to student confidence. Some students worry about being wrong and as such will not speak up. This is an issue that transcends group work and that we need to be aware of in all our lessons and is discussed at length in “inside the black box” (Black and Wiliam, 1998). It is part of our jobs as teachers to create an environment where students do not fear this, and are comfortable with talking without fear of being laughed at. I try to create a culture where students know it’s better to try and be wrong than not to try at all. This classroom culture is discussed by Hattie (2002) as an “optimal classroom climate” and it is certainly a good aim for all classrooms.

The other main downside to group work is behaviour related (Good et al., 1992). Group work can be more difficult to police, and it can become difficult to check that everyone is involved if you have a large class that is split into many groups. This can give rise to the phenomenon known as “Social Loafing”, which is where some members of the group will opt out in order to have an easy ride as they feel other group members will take on their work as well (Karau and Williams, 1993). This is something that teachers need to consider and be wary of. The risk of these issues having a negative impact on learning can vary wildly from class to class and from teacher to teacher. I would advise that any teacher who is considering group work needs to seriously consider the potential for poor behaviour and social loafing to negatively impact the lesson and to think about how they ensure it doesn’t. Different things work for different people. Some people assign roles etc. to groups. Some set up a structure where students can “buy” help from the teacher or other groups. Often a competitive element is introduced. All of these can be effect or not, again depending on the class and on the teacher so it is something we need to work on individually. I’ve written before about one method I’ve had some success with here (2013).

So there are some of the worries around group work and thoughts on what needs to be considered when embarking on it. As mentioned in my previous post, I feel that group work is an inefficient way to introduce new concepts and new learning, but I do see it as something that can be very effective when building problems solving skills and looking at linking areas of mathematics together.

What are your thoughts on group work? And what are your thoughts on the issues mentioned in the article? I’d love to hear them via the comments or on social media.

Reference list / Further reading:

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College London.

Cavadino, S.R. 2013. Effective Group Work. 5th July. Cavmaths. [online] accessed 14th July 2017. Available: https://cavmaths.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/effective-group-work/

Cavadino, S.R. 2017. Student led learning in maths. 13th July. Cavmaths. [online] accessed 14th July 2017. Available: https://cavmaths.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/student-led-learning-in-maths/

Good, T.L., McCaslin, M. and Reys, B.J. 1993. Investigating work groups to promote problem-solving in mathematics. In: Brophy, J. ed. Advances in research on teaching: Planning and managing learning tasks and activities. United Kingdom: JAI Press.

Hattie, J. 2012. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hodgen, J. and Marshall, B. 2005. Assessment for learning in English and mathematics: A comparison. Curriculum Journal. 16(2), pp.153–176.

Karau, S.J. and Williams, K.D. 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65(4), pp.681–706.

Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. 2003. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Pearcy, D. 2015. Reflections on patient problem solving. Mathematics Teaching. 247, pp.39–40.

Piaget, J. 1970. Genetic epistemology. 2nd ed. New York: New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

Simmons, M. 1993. The effective teaching of mathematics. Harlow: Longman.

Skemp, R.R. 1987. The psychology of learning mathematics. United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

von Duyke, K. and Matusov, E. 2015. Flowery math: A case for heterodiscoursia in mathematics problems solving in recognition of students’ authorial agency. Pedagogies: An International Journal. 11(1), pp.1–21.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

%d bloggers like this: