# Tag Archives: rotation

## The Magic Octagon – Dan’s, Andrew’s, and mine

I had saved Andrew’s post in my folder for a recent lesson, which was about Dan’s video.

We paused halfway in, and students decided where it would be. They answered a Quick Poll to let me know, and by the time they had all answered, some had changed their minds.

We quickly looked at the responses, and they decided using time would be easier to decipher than some of the other descriptions.

I sent a second poll. I waited for everyone to answer, even the ones who wanted to take their time thinking about it.

And then we continued to watch.

We paused for the last question, they discussed with their team, and then we finished watching.

Good conversation. But we didn’t get to the sequel proposed by one of Andrew’s students: If the front side arrow is pointed at 5:00, would the other arrow point at 5:00, too? Why or why not?

So I emailed that question to my students.

• Yes, the two points move like opposite hands on a clock moving closer to each other and overlapping at 5:00. At about 11:00 they would overlap again. Otherwise, there is no overlap.
• They would be at 5:00. This is because when he flips the magic octagon, the back arrow also flips, causing the new time to be 3:00 instead of 9:00. This means that if you were to find a line of reflection, you could flip the octagon on that line and the arrow would always land right where the previous one did. If this was on transparent paper, you can see that if one arrow points to 5:00, then the other one would be pointing at 7:00. But if you were to flip the octagon on the reflection line which intersects 12:00 and 6:00, then you would continuously get 5:00 because of the reflection.

As I got the responses from students, I realized that I wished I had asked a different question. While I did include why or why not, and it was obvious from the responses that students didn’t just answer yes or no, I wish I had asked “At what time(s), if any, are the front side and back side arrows at the same time?”

I am reminded of something I can no longer find that I read in a book. A group of teachers observed a “master” teacher for a lesson and then went back to their own classrooms to teach the lesson. The teachers asked the same questions that the master teacher asked; however, the lessons didn’t go as hoped. The teachers were not asking questions based on what was happening in their own classrooms; they were asking questions based on what had happened in the other classroom.

I love reading blog posts and learning from so many mathematics educators. They give me ideas that I wouldn’t have on my own. In fact, as my classroom moved toward more asking and less telling, I used to say that my most important work happened before the lesson, collaborating with other teachers and deciding what questions to ask. I’ve decided otherwise, though. My most important work happens in the moment, not just asking, but also listening. And then, if needed, adjusting what I planned to ask next based on the responses of the students in my care. And so the journey will always continue …

Posted by on November 15, 2016 in Geometry, Rigid Motions

## Proving Segments Congruent First

CCSS-M.G-CO.B.8 Explain how the criteria for triangle congruence (ASA, SAS, and SSS) follow from the definition of congruence in terms of rigid motions.

Proving triangle congruence from rigid motions has been one of our most challenging new standards. Which is exciting for me as a teacher, because I’m always up for learning about something that all of the textbooks from which I’ve taught geometry have let slide into our deductive system as postulates with no need of proof.

So after two years of teaching these standards, it occurred to me that maybe we shouldn’t start with proving triangle congruence using rigid motions. Instead, why don’t we see what happens when we start with two segments.

What set of rigid motions will show that segment AB is congruent to segment CD?

Students started creating a plan (sequence of rigid motions) on paper. But before we moved to the technology to test the plans, we talked about attend to precision. Instead of saying that you’ll use a translation and a rotation, let’s be specific about what translation and what rotation. A translation of what segment by what vector? A rotation of what segment about what point using what angle measure?

I began to see the specifics on paper, but while students were pretty confident about the translations they had named, they were not totally confident about the rotations they had named. We needed our technology to help us see.

One team translated segment AB using vector BC.

Then they rotated segment A’B’ about B’ using angle A’B’D.

We can see that it works: the blue pre-image is now black. And we can move the original segment to see that it sticks.

Did this team prove that segment AB is congruent to segment CD? Or did they prove that segment AB is congruent to segment DC? Does it matter?

How many times have we told students that saying segment AB is congruent to segment CD is the same thing as saying that segment AB is congruent to segment DC? It occurred to me in the midst of this lesson that we have actually shown why those endpoints are interchangeable in our congruence statement for segments.

Another team used a translation (segment AB using vector BD) and was trying to use a reflection. When I discussed their work with them, they said, “we know where to draw the line, but we don’t know how to describe it”.

That team presented their work to the class using Live Presenter.

They drew in a line and reflected segment A’B’ about the line.

It didn’t work, but they moved the line into the right place.

So what’s significant about the line of reflection that works?

Someone in the class suggested that it’s the angle bisector of angle DCB”.

Is it?

We don’t have to wonder. We can verify using our Angle Bisector tool.

What else is significant about the line?

This year in geometry we are often going to have to see what isn’t pictured (look for and make use of structure).

What if we draw in the auxiliary segment B’D? What else is significant about the line of reflection?

It’s the perpendicular bisector of segment B’D. And again, we don’t have to wonder. We can verify using our Perpendicular Bisector tool.

Can you show that segment AB is congruent to segment CD using only reflections?

We left this exercise for Problem Solving Points, as of course by now we were running out of class time.

One student shared her work with me the next day.

And the next.

We still have work to do. But that’s good … this was the first week of school.

We did this task at my CMC-S session recently, and I asked about using at least one reflection since, like my students, most everyone translated and then rotated.

I was expecting to hear: Reflect segment AB about the perpendicular bisector of segment AC.

Then reflect segment A’B’ about the perpendicular bisector of segment A’D.

Some day I’m going to learn to not be surprised by solutions that are different from mine. One of the participants suggested extending lines AB and CD until they meet at point I. Then reflecting segment AB about the angle bisector of angle BIC. Then they translated segment A’B’ using vector B’C. Several weren’t satisfied with proving segment AB congruent to segment DC, so we noted that we could reflect segment B’’A’’ about its perpendicular bisector to show that segment AB is congruent to segment CD.

Another participant asked whether students had been confused moving into proving triangles congruent by changing the order of the vertices, since we can’t do that in a congruence statement. We did this at the beginning of the rigid motions unit, and I didn’t notice any issues moving into congruence statements for triangles where the order of the vertices matters.

And so the journey continues … every once in a while figuring out a task that will help us along the way towards meeting our learning goals.