# Thinking About Areas of Parallelograms When I used to look for practice exercises to use in lessons, I mostly concentrated on finding sets of questions that matched the topic I was teaching.  For example, for lessons about areas of parallelograms, I would look for sets of questions about areas of parallelograms.  It seemed like a fairly straight forward thing to do! However, at the time, I didn’t appreciate how the designs of questions (or sequences of questions) can affect what students think about while they are working. Carefully considered questions can direct attention towards important specifics of a topic, while exercises that aren’t carefully considered can lead to students overlooking key points.

For example, let’s consider lessons that focus on finding areas of parallelograms. Once a class has reached the point where they have established that the formula is base x height, the teacher may then want to set them some practice questions on that skill.  What options are available?  What things might a teacher want students to pay attention to and think about while they are working?

Below is a practice exercise that I dug out of my resource box from a long time ago.  Looking back on this now, I’d argue that students would be able to complete this exercise while ignoring several important points that are pertinent to the purpose of the lesson. The first thing that student might not pay much attention to is the instruction line at the top.  They only really need to read this once because every question requires the same thing.  So after reading it to begin the first question, they might not read the word “area” again for the remainder of the practice – meaning the exercise looks more like the picture below.  Arguably, this could result in students not thinking very much about how the process they are using is for calculating area (in oppose to perimeter, for instance). Another thing that students might not consider is which lengths are appropriate for the formula and that they need to be perpendicular.  Why would they think about this when every question provides only the two numbers they need?  In this case, the students may only be attending to the details that remain in the picture below. However, even these are surplus to requirements for this exercise.  Little attention needs to be paid towards the units because they are all cm.  Students can ignore the units and safely assume that all answers will be in square centimetres. One could even go so far to argue that, with all questions being parallelograms, students don’t really need to pay much attention to what shape they’re dealing with either.  Every question requires the same process: multiply the base by the height (or in this case, just multiply the two numbers you see).  Therefore, students might not think very much about the association between the formula they are using and the shape they are using it for. From the students’ perspective, the most important thing for them to attend to in each question is the pair of numbers provided. In a worst case scenario, what was intended to be practice on calculating areas of parallelograms may end up just being ‘times tables’ practice instead. I’ve painted a fairly gloomy picture that is likely to be over the top and unrealistic!  However, despite the hyperbole, it aims to highlight the importance of carefully considering the purpose behind questions that are used for practice.  I’ve learned that simply selecting a set of questions that matches a topic might not match my intentions for practice.

So what things might I want students to think about while they are practising calculating areas of parallelograms?  And how might I direct their attention towards those things?

Getting students to think about how the lengths used in the formula need to be perpendicular:

A teacher might not want to go too complex with this too quickly and may want to first start students off with some fairly safe questions, like the ones below.  These questions don’t provide much opportunity for the students to go wrong, but gently guide students through some of the ways that the positioning of the lengths can vary.  After answering the first question, the second question aims to demonstrate how the height can be labelled outside of the parallelogram, while the third one shows that the measurements don’t always need to be horizontal and vertical. Once students have got to grips with this, they might next turn their attention towards selecting appropriate lengths and rejecting lengths that are not useful for calculating the area.  This could be done by labelling each parallelogram with more than two lengths, like in the examples below.

While the first question eases students in by using a familiar orientation for the measurements (horizontal and vertical), the second question changes that up by requiring two lengths that appear diagonally on the page.  The third question provides students with four measurements to choose from and can be solved in more than one way. However, it might be that a teacher wants to shift the emphasis of the task away from computation and more towards reasoning with what lengths can be used and what lengths should be rejected.  In this case, questions such as the ones below may serve that purpose.  I’ve found that students tend to find questions like the third one the most unsettling.  This is because they are not asked to calculate the actual area and can’t calculate it with the information provided.   Therefore, the requirements of the question lie firmly in explaining that the 9 cm and 11 cm aren’t perpendicular to each other. A different way of encouraging students to think about finding perpendicular lengths could be by getting them to measure parallelograms for themselves, such as in the examples below. I tend to see that students find the first two questions easier than the third one.  I think this is because they can measure the distance between the top and bottom side in the first question by laying their ruler vertically through the middle of the parallelogram.  Similar for the second one, but with a bit of turning.  However, the way that the third parallelogram slants prevents them from adjoining the top and bottom sides in the same way. Therefore, they need to be a bit more creative with how they obtain the two perpendicular measurements. Another interesting way to get students to think about the relationship between the base and the height is to get students to draw their own parallelograms that meet certain stipulations.  For example, the question below invites mistakes and potential discussion by its choice of numbers. It could be tempting to approach this question by trying to find a factor pair of 24 that adds up to 22 (such as 3 and 8).  However, students have to remind themselves that areas of parallelograms aren’t calculated by multiplying the adjacent sides.  For more questions that get students to think about this distinction, see my recommendation at the end of the post. Getting students to think about how the degree of slant doesn’t change the area:

One way to address this could be by comparing parallelograms that have the same area but look different because of how they slant, such as in the example below.  A variation for this could be for a teacher to first display the two parallelograms without the rulers, ask the class to discuss the question and vote, then display the rulers and ask the class discuss and vote again. Working on this idea also provides opportunities to refer back to the relationship between parallelograms and rectangles (which may have been their starting point for learning the formula for parallelograms). Having a good grasps on this matter makes questions such as the one below much easier.  Students sometimes go the long way round with questions like this, by first calculating the height of the rectangle (8 cm), transferring that to the height of the parallelogram and then multiplying 5 by 8 to get the area of the parallelogram.  While other students instantly recognise that the area of the two shapes are equal. Getting students to think about the associations between each shape and its area formula:

Once students have learned how to calculate areas for a few shapes, I sometimes find that they then start to mix up the different formulae. They may not have had to think about formula selection so much during the practice exercises that just dealt with parallelograms alone.  Therefore, it can be helpful for them to practice recalling and choosing appropriate formulae for different shapes, so that they concentrate on associating each shape with its’ formula.

The picture below tries to exemplify this by providing a mixture of rectangles, squares, triangles and parallelograms in one practice exercise.  The first three questions aim to give students a bit of a “run up” by using the same orientations.  However, curve balls can be thrown to encourage students to concentrate harder on determining each shape and its’ formula.  For example, students can sometimes mistake a square like in the fourth question for a rhombus.  Also, the parallelogram in the last question is trying very hard to look like the triangle in the question before it! If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you: Thinking About Areas of Parallelograms

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

• I’ve promoted this website before, but I think Boss Maths has lots of great sets of questions, including practice exercises on areas of parallelograms.
• I also really like this set of questions by Don Steward, where the values for the area and perimeter are equal in each parallelogram and students have to find missing lengths: Equable Parallelograms

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘Planning Thought’:

‘What I Learned From Shanghai’ Series:

‘Making Connections’ Series

# Thinking About Calculating Areas of Circles It would be a fair and honest reflection to say that lots of resources I used during my first few years of teaching were quite repetitive. While sets of repetitive questions can have their purpose, they’re not always appropriate.  Since then, I’ve been making a more conscious effort to find or write exercises that at least mix up the ways that questions are presented and include more twists and challenges.

I’ve found this to be easier for some topics than others.  For example, even a sequence of fairly similar equations can be spiced up a little by simply switching round the orders of the terms. For practice exercises on calculating areas of triangles, resource writers often mix things up by changing the orientations of the shapes or providing increasing amounts of information in each question. However, one topic that I’ve struggled to do this for is areas of circles. Let’s say that my class have got to the point where they have learned the formula for the area of a circle and now I want them to practise using it to calculate the areas of lots of whole circles.  How can I provide a variety of questions without veering off just yet into areas of semicircles, sectors or compound shapes?

I’ve been searching through lots of textbooks and online resources, looking for ideas for ways to do this.   I’d like to use the rest of this blog post to collate and share some of these ideas for questions on calculating areas of whole circles.  No doubt there are plenty more ideas to find, but here is a selection…

1. Varying whether students are given the length of the radius or diameter: This seems the most obvious and common way to mix up circle area questions.  The main thing students need to ask themselves while working through these sorts of questions is, “Do I need to halve the number before substituting it into the formula or not?”  I quite like exercises that include even numbers for radii and odd numbers for diameters, like in the third and fourth examples.  If students aren’t thinking carefully about what they are doing, they might be tempted to halve the 6 cm because it’s even or doubt whether they should halve the 9 cm because it would give a decimal.

2. Varying the ways that the lengths are labelled: I only came across examples like the third and fourth ones a couple of years ago.  Since using them, I’ve noticed that students seem to find these a little trickier than the first example because the length of each radius is not quite as obvious.  However, labelling lengths in such a way in the early stages could make it easier for students later on, when they begin calculating areas of shaded regions. 3. Questions that don’t provide diagrams: The bottom two questions require students to think a little more carefully about the meaning of ‘radius’ and ‘diameter’ before deciding what numbers to substitute into the formula.  There were plenty of alternative worded descriptions for this kind of thing.

5. Questions that provide more than one length for students to choose from: These questions can catch out students if they have got into the habit of just substituting what ever number they see (or half of it) into the formula.  They have to think a little more carefully about the fact that they need the length from the centre to the edge of the circle.

5. Questions where students need to work out the length of the radius themselves before they calculate the area: I found a bunch of nice questions like this. Before students can calculate the area, they have to consider what information they need and how they can get it.

6. Questions where students need to measure the radius or diameter with a ruler before they calculate the area: I’ve noticed that students tend to find the empty circle the most difficult because they instinctively try to measure the radius.  This is usually by attempting to guess where the centre is, but it can be very hard to do this accurately.  However, if they understand that the diameter is the furthest distance from one side of the circle to the other, then they could try to measure that instead.  For example, they could slide their ruler up the circle, watch the measurements initially increase and then decrease again as they pass the half way point, slide back to the greatest measurement and take that as the length of the diameter.

7. Questions where students need to measure the diameter with a ruler, but part of the circle has been covered: These questions seem to back up point from the third example in the previous section.  In the second question, students can be sure that they are able to measure the furthest distance across the circle because it starts to curve back inwards again just before it’s covered.  However in the third example, the circle is still curving outwards at the point where it starts being covered.

8. Questions where students need to calculate the length of the radius before they calculate the area of the circle: If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you: Thinking About Calculating Areas of Circles

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘Planning Thought’:

‘What I Learned From Shanghai’ Series:

‘Making Connections’ Series

# Thinking About Corresponding Angles

Out of all the training sessions I’ve attended, two quotes in particular have stuck with me and affected how I approach lesson planning. These were from separate presentations but address a similar issue:

“Teachers here don’t plan what they want their students to do; they plan what they want students to think about.”

“Memory is the residue of thought. Or in other words, people remember what they think about.” (This presenter was talking about Daniel Willingham’s book).

Since hearing these, I’ve been looking back over my old lesson resources and considering “What are students likely to think about while answering these questions?” This next series of posts share some thoughts on this question.

***

One topic that bugged me as a teacher for a long time was ‘corresponding and alternate angles’!  It seems like it should be a fairly straight forward topic, so it frustrated me that students often dropped marks on it in exams.  They tended to be okay at working out missing angles, but failed to provide accurate reasons for their answers.  In the follow-up lessons after the exams, I’d find that the class remembered that certain angles on parallel lines were equal but had completely forgotten the words ‘corresponding’ and ‘alternate’  and what they meant.

So I had a dig around through my old resources and for each one considered “What would students be likely to think about during this activity?”  One of my earliest lesson files for introducing corresponding angles contained the set of questions below, which I had taken from the internet.  From what I remember, this exercise was fairly typical for what would come up when Googling “corresponding angles worksheet” at that time. Looking back on this resource, I’m not sure it was the most appropriate set of questions for this lessons.  It’s not that the questions themselves are bad, they just didn’t suit my purpose for that lesson.  The new content that students were learning was the concept of corresponding angles, so I wanted students to think about the phrase ‘corresponding angles’ and its meaning.   But it is more likely that this exercise just got students to think “Is the answer the same as this number? Or do I need to subtract it from 180?”  While this might be useful later on, it wasn’t what I wanted at this point of introduction.

Since then, I’ve been looking for alternatives to such a numerically focused exercise.  In particular, I’ve tried to find activities that encourage students to think about the meaning of corresponding angles in lots of different ways.

For example, one task could be to present students with pairs of angles and ask them to consider “Are these angles corresponding or not?”  The questions below require students to compare examples with non-examples so that they can learn to discriminate between them.  While doing this, I would insist that students wrote the words ‘corresponding’ or ‘not corresponding’ rather than just putting ticks or crosses, so that they keep mentally pairing the word with its meaning. Once they’ve practised evaluating pairs of angles, a follow-up task could approach the concept from the opposite direction.  The questions below provide students with one angle and then asks them to think “Which angles correspond with this one?” Alternatively (or subsequently) students could be challenged with a slightly more open task.  Rather than focusing on just one angle at a time, like with the questions above, the next exercise requires students to consider “Which angles correspond with each other?”  My classes have found this task more difficult than the last one because it requires three letter notation, and because they don’t initially know how many pairs of corresponding angles they are looking for in each diagram. In all of the exercises above, the questions have been restricted to looking at corresponding angles on parallel lines.  But the lines don’t have to be parallel.  For example, that first exercise could have looked like this: I reckon that because the exams solely focus on corresponding angles around parallel lines, so did all the textbooks, Power Points and worksheets that I found.  So for a long time, I just presumed that the lines had to be parallel for angles to be defined as corresponding.  However, I’ve since learned that this is wrong and that parallel lines are just a special case were corresponding angles are equal to each other.

This opened up a new alternative for how to include numerical examples while still keeping the focus firmly on corresponding angles.  For example, rather providing students with a pair of parallel lines and asking them to find a missing angle, they could be provided with the angles and be asked to decide whether or not the lines are parallel.  The intention for the task below is to encourage students to think “If the lines are parallel then the corresponding angles will be equal.” The key thing that I’ve learned from scrutinising my old resources in such a way is that questions requiring numerical answers can sometimes distract students from the main point of the lesson.  So when designing tasks, rather than thinking “What do I want students to work out?” in each question, it may be more appropriate for me to consider “What do I want students to think about?”

If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you: Thinking About Corresponding Angles

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘Planning Thought’:

‘What I Learned From Shanghai’ Series:

‘Making Connections’ Series

# A Shanghai Lesson on Adding Negative Numbers Three years after visiting Shanghai, what has stuck with me? (Part 3)

In 2015, my colleague (@Carohami) and I took part in an England-China teacher exchange programme, organised by the Maths Hubs.  In this series of posts, I reflect on some of the things that have stuck with me over the last three years.

***

The second leg of the England-China exchange involved two teachers from Shanghai visiting England for a month and teaching some of our classes in Halifax.   In this post, I’d like to present an account of what happened during a lesson with a Year 7 class on adding negative numbers.

Account of the Lesson

The lesson started off with a brief demonstration of representing single numbers as arrows on a number line.  Positive numbers travel to the right; negative numbers travel to the left. That done, the teacher and students used this representation to explore addition of two numbers.  Each addition in this set of introductory questions used the numbers 5 and 3, while incorporating every combination of positives and negatives.  The students drafted ideas on mini whiteboards (this was the first time the teacher had used mini whiteboards) and the teacher drew a copy of each diagram on the main board. The teacher was keen that drawing diagrams didn’t become the method that students used to solve additions with negative numbers.  So the teacher then used the diagrams from the board to highlight key features and derive generalisations.  The aim was for students to know and understand rules that would help them to calculate additions quickly in their heads.

The first key feature discussed was how sometimes both arrows pointed in the same direction and made one long path, while other times they pointed in opposite directions and overlapped.  This led to the realisation that when the two numbers in the addition have the same sign, the two arrows will continue on from one another.  Therefore, when the two numbers have the same signs then the solution to the addition will contain the sum of those two numbers (putting the negative and positive aside for a minute). A more precise way to describe this could be that the absolute value of the solution will be equal to the sum of the absolute values of each number – but this terminology wasn’t used in this Y7 lesson. Conversely, if the two numbers in the addition have different signs to each other then the arrows overlap.  Therefore, the end result leaves you with the difference between the lengths of the two arrows.  This means that when the signs in the addition are different, the solution will contain the difference between the two numbers. Next: how to decide whether the total will be positive or negative?  They started by looking at cases where the answer they got was positive. It seemed fairly obvious that if both numbers in the addition are positive then the total would be positive.  But how about if one is positive and the other is negative? In both of these pictures, they could see that the answers they got were positive because the longest arrows were travelling in the positive direction.  Then onto cases where the total was negative… These pictures show that the answers they got were negative because the longest arrows were negative.  This led to the conclusion that the total from an addition of two numbers will always share the same as the number with the greatest absolute value.  This all got summarised into three rules for working mentally:

• Same signs: use the sum
• Different sign: use the difference
• The solution will have the same sign as the number with the greatest [absolute] value. Once these rules were established and seemingly understood by the students, the remaining time of the lesson was given over to practising adding with negative numbers abstractly.  The first few questions were answered by the class one at a time on mini-whiteboards; the rest were done independently in books.

My Reflections

What struck many of us who saw this lesson was the strong emphasis on using tricks or rules to calculate abstractly.  The very first time I taught negative numbers, I taught it completely abstractly using rules and found that students kept forgetting the rules or would get them mixed up.  The following year, I endeavoured to teach the concept for deeper understanding by using number lines (although I tended to represent calculations on the number line as ‘starting number’ and ‘movement’).  This time, students appeared to understand what was going on, but they ended up relying on the number lines so much that they struggled to break away from them.  The number line ended up becoming their method to calculate with negative numbers.  This made performing mental calculations troublesome.

What I found interesting about the Shanghai teacher’s lesson was the relationship between diagrams and mental methods.  The purpose of drawing diagrams was never to get answers.  They were not used as a method; they were used to illustrate a method.  It was clear to the class that the end goal was to be able to calculate addition with negative numbers mentally and the diagrams were a vehicle to get them there.

If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you: A Shanghai Lesson on Adding Negative Numbers

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘What I Learned From Shanghai’:

‘Making Connections’ Series:

‘Planning Thought’ Series:

# Do Sweat The Small Stuff! Three years after visiting Shanghai, what has stuck with me? (Part 2)

In 2015, my colleague (@Carohami) and I took part in an England-China teacher exchange programme, organised by the Maths Hubs.  In this series of posts, I reflect on some of the things that have stuck with me over the last three years.

***

In some ways, planning a mathematics lesson is a bit like staring at a fractal. The mathematics curriculum is often separated into large sections, such as Number, Data, Algebra etc.  Each section tends to be split into subsections that might be referred to as topics, chapters or units of work: introduction to fractions, equivalence, four operations with fractions, and so on.  Within each unit students learn a set of skills, concepts and procedures, such as how to add fractions, how to multiply them, etc.  When teachers plan to teach each of these skills, we often break them down into a series of small steps (e.g. learning to add fractions might be broken down into adding like fractions, then related fractions, then unrelated fractions, mixed numbers and so on).  And then within each small step there are lots of even finer points.  When adding related fractions, how do you decide which fraction to change? Once you’ve added the fractions, how do you spot if the total is a whole number?

This fractal analogy is far from perfect! But it aims to emphasise those tiny parts of mathematics that can be hard to spot unless you deliberately focus on them.  It was these fine details that I reckon overlooked on too many occasions at the start of my teaching career.  I probably still miss a fair few now.

Sometimes I would presume that students would just pick up the fine details along the way, while learning bigger things.  For example, I presumed that students would just pick up what it means for two algebraic terms to be ‘like’ while they are busy ‘collecting like terms’. Or they would learn how identify which angles in isosceles triangles are equal while solving missing angle problems. Even when I did cover these points, on reflection, I don’t think I gave them as much time as they needed.

Other times, fine details would crop up sporadically and cause problems while students were working through an exercise.  For example, when students were practising to rearrange formulae and a question such as the one below came up, students assumed that they had made a mistake because their answer didn’t match the textbook’s answer. When I tried to reassure them that they were right, some would then ask, “So are there two correct answers then?”  I would then frantically try to convince them that both fractions were identical.

There were even small details that I was completely oblivious to.  Throughout my own GCSEs, A-levels, university degree and first few years of teaching, I thought that alternate angles and corresponding angles only existed between parallel lines. Reassuringly, I wasn’t alone with this!  It was only when I read an article by Huang and Leung (link at the bottom) that I learned that the lines don’t have to be parallel for the angles to be corresponding; parallel lines is just the special case when corresponding angles are equal. One thing struck me about the lessons I saw in Shanghai was how they paid special attention to little things.  On numerous occasions, the teacher would dedicate part of a lesson to discussing a tiny, tiny aspect of a topic and then get the students to practise that point in isolation before applying it to bigger questions.  These moments would only take up a few minutes of the lesson, but they were enough to prepare students for the more complex problems ahead. They taught each detail explicitly!

Here are some examples from the lessons we visited:

1. By spending enough time on these points:

(m-n) = –(n-m)     and      –(m-n) = (n-m)

students were better prepared to deal with situations like this: 2. In a lesson on multiplying terms with indices, the teacher started by asking the following: 3. There was an exercise that solely practised applying powers to negatives: 4. By tackling points 2 and 3 in advance,  students were equipped to tackle these questions: 5. Once students were confident on all of the previous points, this next question became straight forward: There are so many tiny points like these in mathematics that addressing each of them separately would completely atomize the curriculum.  I’m not yet sure about how wise that would be.  Is it necessary for every single student to cover every single tiny point explicitly like this? Probably not. I’m not sure it’s even possible in the available time.  Then again, I find that students’ misconceptions are often caused by misunderstanding one of these tiny aspects of the topic.

If there’s one thing I’m certain about, it’s that the trip to Shanghai highlighted the importance of the little things.  On reflection, the reason why I probably didn’t think so much about these little things was because, as an experience mathematician, I didn’t need to think about them – the more experienced we get with something, the more we automate and the less we need to think about what we’re doing.  But my students are not expert mathematicians; they’re learning.  So the Shanghai exchange has encouraged me to pay more attention to the fine details and think carefully about if, when and how I should address them.

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘What I Learned From Shanghai’:

‘Making Connections’ Series:

‘Planning Thought’ Series:

# Not As Complicated As It Looks… Three years after visiting Shanghai, what has stuck with me? (Part 1)

In 2015, my colleague (@Carohami) and I took part in an England-China teacher exchange programme, organised by the Maths Hubs. We were incredibly lucky to go and saw some fantastic maths lessons! And while we can’t replicate everything from Shanghai schools (and wouldn’t want to), there were plenty of things that seemed appropriate for any maths teacher to take away.  After all, we don’t watch other teachers to emulate them; we watch them to learn.

Overall, the trip provided lots of food for thought and inspiration to try out new ideas.  In this next series of posts, I’d like to reflect on some of the things that have stuck with me over the last three years.

***

I think that I may have been a little bit mean in a recent lesson.  The whole class were sat eagerly with their pens held ready, when they heard me say…

“I’m going to display a question on the board.

You’ll all know how to solve it, but the numbers are quite big.

But still, I know you’ll be able to do it!

I wonder who will be the first to show me the correct answer?

Are you all ready?

Set… Go!” While nearly all the students had their heads down, frantically trying to divide 248 by 82, one student held up the answer 124 after just a couple of seconds.  Initially, the rest of the class were flabbergasted that someone could calculate it so quickly.  But then a ripple of “Oh yeah!” noises spread around the room as each student noticed that the fraction simplified to a half.

Maybe it was cruel of me to lure them into such a trap.  But it was to make the point that it can be unwise to jump into calculations too quickly, and that sometimes the first method that comes to mind isn’t always the most straight forward.

Using cheeky questions like the one above was one thing that I took from my trip to Shanghai – in fact it is probably the thing that has stuck with me the most.  In lots of the lessons we visited, the students were presented with questions that looked more complicated than they really were.  For example, during a lesson on simplifying surds, the teacher posed the following two questions: These questions may look quite complicated on the surface, but the numbers in them have been chosen so that they work out fairly nice once you get going. Here is another one that I saw during a lesson after collecting like terms and substitution: Each of these questions presented an initial shock (or at least I was shocked; the students seemed unfazed), a feeling of surprise once you got started and then a strange sense of satisfaction with the end solution.

My favourite questions were ones that led to discussions about comparing different methods.  Usually with these, simply number crunching your way through the calculations would make for hard work.  But when students pause, think and apply some reasoning, they may find an easier route to the solution.  For example, one of the NCETM’s pre-trip seminars presented a question a bit like this: On the surface, this could look like a question that requires multiplying decimals together.  However, there is an easier way: A similar idea could be used with questions on finding fractions of a quantity: It turns out that I didn’t really need to go all the way to Shanghai to see questions like these; there were plenty being used in England.  However, the trip drew my attention to them (amongst other things), allowed me to see how students in these Shanghai schools tackled them and inspired me to start using them with my own classes.

Sometimes I’ve used these towards the end of a lesson, for the whole class to answer on mini-whiteboards.  But more than anything, I’ve found it helpful to incorporate them into practice exercises. Once students have practised something enough times that they don’t need to think about it as much, a couple of these types of questions can get them thinking again.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve been building bit of a collection of these (mostly by poking my head into classrooms or looking in textbooks for inspiration).  Here are a few more that I’d like to share: That fourth method seemed a bit odd to my students when they first saw it, but it helped them with the next couple of questions.  The next group of questions share a similar theme of ‘easier if you simplify first‘.

For a lesson on substituting into expressions: For a lesson on fractional indices: When students are applying many rules of indices: If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you:‘Less Complicated Than It Looks’

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘What I Learned From Shanghai’:

‘Making Connections’ Series:

‘Planning Thought’ Series:

# Many Methods: One Topic (Part 2) Part 1 of this post, Many Methods: One Topic (Part 1), discussed how learning multiple methods for solving a problem can help students to become flexible mathematicians. This is especially important when their usual “go to” method would be harder to use than alternative ones.  This post (Part 2) looks at how methods that may look  different can in fact be very similar. Furthermore, comparing multiple methods can allow students to see the connections between them and lead them to understand broader principles of mathematics.

To exemplify this, let’s use a recent lesson on calculating angles for a pie chart…

The lesson started with the following four questions: These questions were chosen to recap key skills and prime students for the lesson ahead.  The numbers in the questions match the numbers in the upcoming pie chart so that links between the different topics can be made extra clear.  For more on these kinds of starters, see my previous post: Crafty Starter Activities.

The class already knew what pie charts were and what they could be used for.  So, after a little bit of preamble, the class were presented with data from a survey about favourite instruments to play: This wasn’t the most meaningful set of data, but it had been engineered to allow students to learn the skills before applying them to more realistic examples.

They were asked to think about how they could use things that they had previously learned to find ways of calculating the angles for each sector. Initially they did this on their own, without help, while the teacher monitored what they were trying out.  The teacher then picked some students to transfer their methods onto the board for class discussion. This is what they came up with…

Method 1 (fractions of 360): some students wrote each group as a fraction of the total frequency and then found that fraction of 360 degrees (relating to Q2 from the starter). Method 2 (unitary method): some students calculated the angle for a single person and then multiplied that by the frequency of each group (relating to Q4 from the starter). Method 3 (scaling): others found a multiplier to get from the total of the frequencies to the total of the angles and then applied that to all the other frequencies (relating to Q3 from the starter). These three most popular methods had been anticipated by the teacher before the lesson and included in the lessons plan.  In fact, the starter activity was planned to plant these ideas in their heads. However, one student came up with a fourth method that hadn’t been anticipated…

Method 4 (using equivalent fractions): he wrote each group as a fraction of the total frequency and then found equivalent fractions with denominators of 360. Once all four methods had been written on the board, the class were then asked the following:
Question: What do all these methods have in common?
Response: In each method we ended up multiplying each frequency by 9.
Question: Where did that 9 come from?
Response: For each method, we started by doing 360 divided by 40.

These commonalities were made apparent by the use of colour in the board work.   By discussing these points, students could see how the steps for each method were identical. All four methods may have looked different and used different ideas, but the calculations were the same. They were then asked some more questions…

If I was to give you a different table of data, how would your calculations change?
Would any numbers would remain the same?
Which numbers would be different?
How would you know what these new numbers are?
Can you describe a step-by-step procedure for what you would do?

This, in time, led to the students agreeing on a single, big idea that underpinned all four methods:

To calculate the angles for a pie chart, you can divide 360 degrees by the total frequency and then multiply that answer by the frequency for each group.

This idea of solving a problem with multiple methods and then comparing them was something that I saw a lot during a trip to schools in Tokyo.  In most lessons, the class would solve a problem in multiple ways and share them with each other.  But the conclusion of the lesson was never, “You can use any of these ways to solve problems like this.”  The lessons always continued to discuss the methods in-depth until a bigger learning point was found.  This pie charts lesson was an attempt to replicate this style of lesson in Halifax.

Another example of creating broader generalisations from multiple methods could be with a question on comparing fractions. My last blog post looked at two methods for comparing fractions: using a common denominator and using a common numerator. Rather than viewing these as two different methods, they could be combined to create one overarching idea:

We can compare fractions by making one of the parts the same in each.

But this could be broadened out even more to apply to other topics:

We can compare proportions by making one of the parts the same in each.

This general principle could then be used with other aspects of mathematics…

Value for money: Percentages are often used to standardise information to be out of 100: And even speed.  Calculating the speeds in metres per second allows us to compare the distances for the same amount of time: If you would like to use or share any of the images from this blog, feel free to use this Power Point to help you: ‘Many Methods: One Topic (Part 2)’

If you found this post interesting, then I would also recommend the following:

Previous blog posts:

This series, ‘Making Connections’:

‘What I Learned From Shanghai’ Series:

‘Planning Thought’ Series: