Hi Susan,
Here is the final unit plan and the lessons:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Lo_iAULqMFAmUt4eL3H_MX3Opc9r0mCp?usp=sharing
I will be replying to the comments you made last time in this post:
"Do make sure that the topics you are planning to teach are appropriate for the students' background and grade level. For example, induction and group theory are not typically taught in Grade 9 -- but you may be able to give introduce some foundational ideas from these topics iff you don't rush things or make assumptions about the students' background knowledge!"
We talked at the end of the class about how these topics are actually in the Mickelson textbook I'll be teaching from. It involves teaching induction in Grade 9, as well as deductive reasoning (Chapter 7). The end chapter (Chapter 9) has symmetry that is close to group theory and includes group theory notation although they don't talk about groups specifically.
"Your project is still quite vague and needs a lot of thought about what you will actually ask students to do. They will not have Zome tools readily available -- and Lego is limited by its construction. When you talk about symmetry, be clear about whether you simply mean bilateral mirror symmetry (which is probably too basic for the project and grade level), or all kinds of symmetry groups (which is probably too much for the class to take on), or some specific spot in between those two!"
Thank you for the feedback. I was not clear on what is meant by symmetry. I've added several details on the project and how the students will be assessed using a strength based model.
"What homework are you planning to assign, that you expect to take up at the start of each class? I would NOT make a break so early in the class -- you've barely gotten started, so don't disperse the energy already at that point! I'd save a break for at least 50 or 60 minutes into the class."
I've removed the early break and added a homework section in the lesson plans.
Your lesson ideas are still very sparse and not defined enough at the moment, and will need more thought. Some of the activities in different parts of the lessons (like the Thinking Classroom and Scale Factor sections in 9.1) seem like a repeat of the same activity, at least as they are described at the moment.
I've re-written them so it's clearer. The thinking classroom part focuses on whether "pi" exists for other shapes. i.e. if there is a universal scale factor for squares or triangles. The other part "Scale Factor" focuses on simply finding scale factors of arbitrary shapes, which are not necessarily squares or triangles. The textbook offers different polygons and even fully drawn out objects.
"I like the outdoor embodied activity idea, and need to see it in more detail."
I've added more details.
"I worry about the totem pole symmetry idea in the third lesson as it seems to be mentioned in a superficial way as it stands right now. However, with some research, this could be developed into something more meaningful and profound, and perhaps a real carving project (individual or collaborative) with a local carver and real wood could be a way of bringing true Indigenous ways of learning to your class? Or there may be other artistic media like painting or printmaking that could do something similar...something to consider."
I agree. I've replaced it with an arbitrary/necessary topic instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment