# Tag Archives: SMP 1

## Collaboration & Perseverance: What Do They Look Like?

As I was looking through some pictures, I ran across these two from last year’s lesson.

What do you see in these pictures?

I was struck by what I saw: collaboration and perseverance.

What do collaboration and perseverance look like in classrooms you’ve observed? What about in your own classroom?

How do you create a culture of collaboration in your classroom?

How do you make sure your students know that we want them to learn mathematics by making sense of problems and persevering in solving them?

Thank you to all who share your classroom stories of collaboration and perseverance, so that we might add parts of those to our own classroom stories, as the journey continues.

Posted by on May 8, 2016 in SMP1, Student Reflection

## Marine Ramp, Part 2

After talking about how Marine Ramp played out in the classroom with another geometry teacher, she decided to try it the next time our classes met, and I revisited it.

Our essential learning for the day content-wise was still:

Level 4: I can use trigonometric ratios to solve non-right triangles in applied problems.

Level 3: I can use trigonometric ratios to solve right triangles in applied problems.

Level 2: I can use trigonometric ratios to solve right triangles.

Level 1: I can define trigonometric ratios.

[Since I had recently read Suzanne’s post about #phonespockets and tried it during Part 1, I turned on the voice recording again. When I listened later, I noticed how l o n g some of the Quick Polls took. And I could also hear that students were talking about the math.)

We went back to the Boat Dock Generator to generate a new situation.

I sent the poll, and the responses were perfect for conversation.

About half used the sine ratio, using the requirement that the ramp angle can’t exceed 18˚. The other half used the Pythagorean Theorem, which neither meets the ramp angle requirement:

Nor the floating dock:

We generated one more.

And had great success with the calculation.

And whether we were making any assumptions about the situation.

As expected, they generalized with sin(18˚). And they didn’t really think we were making any assumptions. Except a few about the tides. And that the height was the shorter side in the right triangle.

Which was the perfect setup for the next randomly generated situation.

(I would have kept regenerating until we got a similar situation had the random timing not worked out as perfectly as it did.)

While students worked on calculating the ramp length, I heard lots of evidence I can make sense of problems and preservere in solving them … lots of checking the reasonableness of answers. “No – you can’t do that.” “That won’t work.” “Those sides won’t make a triangle.” And I think it’s telling that no response came in that calculated with the sine ratio.

Here’s what I saw after 2 minutes:

After 4 minutes:

And after 5 minutes:

So were you making any assumptions?

Yes!

And that assumption was … ?

We assumed you could always use sine. But this time, using the sine ratio didn’t work, so we used cosine.

How did you get 26.8?

We did the Pythagorean Theorem and then rounded up to be sure the ramp would meet the floating dock. After looking at the Boat Dock Generator, most of the class decided they might not want to walk on that ramp.

27.9 came from using the cosine ratio. Would you feel more confident on that ramp?

Will the cosine ratio always work?

We ended wondering whether we could generalize what will always work, given the maximum ramp angle, the distance between low and high tides, and the distance from the dock to the floating ramp.

Next year, we will go farther into generalizing, which might look something like this.

We started our Right Triangles Unit with Boat on the River, and we ended with Marine Ramp.  More than any other year, students had the opportunity to actually engage in many of the steps of the modeling cycle – a big change from how I used to “teach” right triangle trigonometry through computation only.

So tag, you’re it now, and I’ll look forward to hearing about your experience with Marine Ramp as the journey continues …

Posted by on February 19, 2016 in Geometry, Right Triangles

## SMP1: Make Sense of Problems and Persevere #LL2LU

We want every learner in our care to be able to say

I can make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.  (CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP1)

But…What if I think I can’t? What if I’m stuck? What if I feel lost, confused, or discouraged?

How might we offer a pathway for success? What if we provide cues to guide learners and inspire interrogative self-talk?

Level 4:

I can find a second or third solution and describe how the pathways to these solutions relate.

Level 3:

I can make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

Level 2:

I can ask questions to clarify the problem, and I can keep working when things aren’t going well and try again.

Level 1:

I can show at least one attempt to investigate or solve the task.

In Struggle for Smarts? How Eastern and Western Cultures Tackle Learning, Dr. Jim Stigler, UCLA, talks about a study giving first grade American and Japanese students an impossible math problem to solve. The American students worked on average for less than 30 seconds; the Japanese students had to be stopped from working on the problem after an hour when the session was over.

How may we bridge the difference in our cultures to build persistence to solve problems in our students?

NCTM’s recent publication, Principles to Action, in the Mathematics Teaching Practices, calls us to support productive struggle in learning mathematics. How do we encourage our students to keep struggling when they encounter a challenging task? They are accustomed to giving up when they can’t solve a problem immediately and quickly. How do we change the practice of how our students learn mathematics?

[Cross posted on Experiments in Learning by Doing]