Developing Mathematical Practice in High School

SA
PL
ER
Developing
Mathematical Practice
in High School
A Course for Teachers

Facilitator Guide
Developing Mathematical Practice in High School was developed at Education Development

Center, Inc. (EDC), within the Mathematical Practices Institute (MPI). Development was funded
in part by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and by the
National Science Foundation.
Education Development Center, Inc.
Mathematical Practices Institute
Waltham, Massachusetts
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant Nos. ESI 0242476, MDR
9252952, and ESI 9617369. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.
Pre publication draft. Do not copy, quote, or cite without written permission.
Developing Mathematical Practice in High School Author Team

Al Cuoco (lead author), Elena Kaczorowski, Bowen Kerins, and Kevin Waterman
The author team would like to thank Courtney Arthur, Eden Badertscher, E. Paul Goldenberg,
Melody Hachey, Wayne Harvey, June Mark, Matthew McLeod, Kerry Ouellet, and Mary Wedow
for their invaluable help throughout the design and production of this course.
Copyright 2013 by Education Development Center, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United
States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained
from the author prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or
transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to Education Development Center, Inc.,
Mathematical Practices Institute, 43 Foundry Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02453.
Developing
Mathematical Practice
in High School
!
Sampler Contents
!
Introduction!.............................................................................................................!1!
Course!Overview!......................................................................................................!2!
EDCs!Approach!to!the!Standards!for!Mathematical!Practice!..................................!4!
Facilitator!Notes!(UNIT&1&EXCERPT)!................................................................................!5!
The&facilitator&notes&show&details&for&two&activities&from&Unit&1:&
Maximizing&area&and&SSS&and&triangle&area.&
Participant!Handouts!(UNIT&1&EXCERPT)!.......................................................................!13!
About!EDC!and!MPI!........................................................................!inside!back!cover!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
&
Developing Mathematical Practice in High School
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics comprise two equally important parts: the Standards
for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice (MPs). While the content
standards describe the specific content at each level, the MPs give a blueprint for bringing coherence to
the study of mathematics by focusing on the styles of work used by mathematics professionals: analyzing
problems, looking for structural similarities within and across contexts, seeking and precisely articulating
regularities in processes, making viable arguments to support claims, and persevering in investigations
that require sustained concentration.
Developing Mathematical Practice (DMP) in High School is designed to help high school teachers
understand and use the MPs, helping them bring some order and logic to the content they teach.
Participants will revisit everyday content from across the entire high school curriculumcontent that has
been traditionally difficult to learn and teachand they will explore how to approach these topics
through the lens of the MPs. For instance, participants will use:
Standard 8 (Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning) to develop Herons formula, to explore
a method for finding an equation to model a word problem or to characterize a line between two
points, and to solve optimization problems that arise in geometry and statistics
Standard 7 (Look for and make use of structure) to develop general methods for factoring polynomials
and for uncovering structure in geometric diagrams
Standards 3 and 6 (Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others and Attend to precision)
to extend ordinary arithmetic to irrational and complex numbers and to develop a logical sequence
that progresses from congruence to similarity to area
This 35 hour course was originally designed to be presented in 5 seven hour units, but each unit can be
broken down into multiple sessions. The course materials include facilitator and participant materials for
each session.
The facilitator notes include a detailed discussion of the mathematics presented throughout the day,
solutions to the problems presented, agendas for each unit with estimated time breakdowns for each
activity, and a materials list. The notes also include suggestions for how to present the materials,
examples of results from past sections of the course, and possible avenues for further exploration. In
addition, a Mathematical Overview provides background on the activities within the unit. This
overview provides further insight into the MPs, as well as into how the various activities fit together
to support them. This overview is crucial in facilitating a discussion of the MPs and how they unify
seemingly unrelated content.
PowerPoint slides are included in electronic form for presentation during the course. They tie
directly to the problem sets and discussions that will help guide the days activities.
Participant materials include problem sets for each day, assessments, and other handouts. These
consumable materials can be purchased from EDC through mpi.edc.org.
Facilitator Training
EDC offers this course, along with a number of other professional development workshops, facilitated by
members of the Mathematical Practices Institute team, on a regular basis. In addition, a facilitator
certification program for this course is available. Visit mpi.edc.org for more information.
2013 Education Development Center, Inc. All Rights Reserved. For review purposes only.
Page 1
Course Overview
COURSE OVERVIEW
The course comprises five units. Unit 1 explores the MPs generally and discusses how they interact with
each other. Units 24 focus on a particular practice standard. Unit 5 reviews the content of the week,
allowing discussion time for participants to explore how focusing on the MPs can help organize the
topics they teach. The following pages provide details of the activities participants will engage in
throughout the course.
Unit 1: Introducing the Standards for Mathematical Practice

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Welcome and Introduction.

Getting Started: Maximizing area. Participants cut and rearrange rectangles that share the same
perimeter, comparing the results with the one with maximum area.
An Overview of the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Participants learn about and discuss each
of the eight practices.
Investigation: SSS and triangle area. Participants find the area of various triangles given their side
lengths. They revisit the topic in Unit 4, where they develop Herons formula.
Investigation: Geometric optimization. Participants explore three geometry problems that involve
optimization:
a. The airport problem. Find a point that minimizes the sum of distances to three other points.
b. The burning tent problem. Find a point on a line that minimizes the sum of distances from two
points on the same side of the line.
c. The circular pool problem. Investigate the sum of distances between a point on a circle and two
other points in the interior of the circle, locating experimentally several interesting points.
Mathematical Reflections. Participants review the materials explored in this unit and begin to
describe how the MPs influence each activity.
Unit 2: MP Standard 8Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Getting Started: Word problems. Participants explore a general purpose tool to solve word
problems: Guess Check Generalize (G C G).
Investigation: Developing an equation of a line. Participants use G C G to find the equation of a
line and a circle.
Investigation: Finding a rule for a table of data. Participants find a function that fits a table of data.
Unpacking MP.8. Participants discuss how to implement this practice in their classrooms.
Investigation: Monthly payment on a loan. Participants explore how to calculate the monthly
payment on a car loan. This exploration continues through Unit 3.
Mathematical Reflections. Participants review the materials explored in this unit and describe how
MP.8 influences each activity.
Unit 3: MP Standard 7Look for and make use of structure

1.
2.
Getting Started: Revisiting monthly payments on a loan.

Investigation: Fitting functions to tables. Participants explore different ways for finding a
polynomial function that fits a table of data.
a. Newtons difference formula. Calculate the differences between consecutive outputs of an input
output table.
Page 2
Course Overview
b. Lagrange interpolation. Given any set of data (not necessarily consecutive), find a polynomial
function that exactly fits all points.
Investigation: Factoring polynomials. Participants discuss methods for factoring non monic
quadratics and look at some advanced factoring techniques.
Investigation: Probability distributions. Participants use polynomial algebra to investigate how to
determine the distribution of sums when two or three dice are thrown.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unit 4: MP Standard 3Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of

others
1.
2.
Getting Started: Are all triangles isosceles? Participants seek the flaw in a proof.
Revisiting SSS and triangle area. Continuing the work from Unit 1, participants develop Herons
formula for calculating the area of a triangle given its side lengths.
Investigation: Area and dissections. Participants dissect and rearrange shapes, exploring various
methods for determining area formulas for several figures.
Investigation: Irrational numbers. Participants reason about rational numbers, exploring proofs that
the square root of 2 is irrational.
Investigation: Real number exponents. Participants explore how to make sense of integer, rational,
and irrational exponents.
Investigation: Fitting lines to data. Participants develop a method for determining an equation of the
line that best fits a set of data.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unit 5: Implications for high school mathematics

1. Getting Started: Pippins and cheese. Participants explore whether a rectangle is uniquely
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
determined by its area and perimeter, and extend their argument to determine whether a rectangular
box is uniquely determined by its surface area and volume.
Revisiting problems from the course. Participants take a final look at some of the problems from
earlier in the course, including a review of how complex numbers were introduced historically.
Assessment (optional). Participants take a written assessment demonstrating their understanding of
the MPs.
Overview for administrators (optional). This activity provides a brief overview, with a few basic
mathematical examples, to introduce administrators to the MPs and provide them information to
support their teachers implementation of the MPs in their classrooms.
Investigation: Limericks. Participants explore the possible rhyming patterns of a five line poem.
Implementing the Standards for Mathematical Practice in your classroom. Participants engage in
an open discussion of how they can shape activities in their individual classrooms to take advantage
of the MPs.
Mathematical Reflections. Participants review and refine their notes from previous units, describing
how the MPs influenced each activity and can influence other activities in their classrooms.
A phrase borrowed from Shakespeares The Merry Wives of Windsor describing delicious desserts.
Page 3
EDCs Approach to the MPs
EDCS APPROACH TO THE STANDARDS FOR MATHEMATICAL PRACTICE

It will be helpful to name and (at least partially) specify some of the thingspractices,
dispositions, sensibilities, habits of mindentailed in doing mathematics.... These are things
that mathematicians typically do when they do mathematics. At the same time, most of
these things, suitably interpreted or adapted, could apply usefully to elementary
mathematics no less than to research.
Hyman Bass
The highlighted sentences in the above quote capture an approach to mathematics education that has
been the centerpiece of EDCs work for over two decades.
The Common Cores eight Standards for Mathematical Practice (MPs) give specificity to the ways in which
the things that mathematicians typically do when they do mathematics can connect the mathematics of
K12 to mathematics as it is practiced outside of school. If students learn to be mathematical thinkers and
problem solvers, if they develop a set of general purpose tools that will adapt to a broad range of
situations, theyll be able to grapple with problems wherever and whenever they arise.
The MPs are not meant to be implemented as eight discrete skills that are the focus of particular lessons;
rather, they provide teachers and students a web of mathematical habits of mind that can be used to bring
coherence and parsimony to the ways in which students meet the content standards in the Common Core.
Indeed, there is a practice of mathematics, just as there is a practice of medicine and a practice of teaching.
EDCs Developing Mathematical Practice (DMP) course is designed to help teachers make the practice of
mathematics an integral part of their daily work with students. To do this, the materials employ some
proven design principles:
To implement the Standards for Mathematical Practice, it is necessary to experience the practice of
mathematics. Teachers spend much of their time in DMP doing mathematicsworking on problems,
making abstractions, and building theoriesand then reflecting on their own work and thinking.
The mathematics on which teachers work comes right from the Common Core high school content
standards. Some of EDCs other professional development designs use content that is somewhat
outside of the day to day work of high school teaching, but DMP makes use of non exotic content,
helping teachers see how the dispositions used by mathematicians are not only tractable in high
school contexts, but they can also make high school content easier for students to understand, easier
to teach, and take less time in class.
While DMP explores a great deal of mathematical thinking embodied in the MPs, it concentrates on
three aspects that have been shown to be especially difficult: (1) the many roles of viable argument in
mathematics, (2) the utility of finding and using mathematical structure in scientific investigations,
and (3) the general purpose tool of abstracting regularity from repeated actions. The tasks in DMP
show how these habits come to life in the context of everyday high school mathematics.
EDC has been doing this kind of workhelping teachers connect the content of high school to the
practice of mathematicsfor decades. The development team consists of teachers, educators, and
mathematicians, many of whom have devoted their careers to helping high school teachers bring serious
mathematics to their students. DMP is the culmination of years of work, testing, and refinement. School
districts, states, and teacher collaboratives will find in DMP an effective and concrete vehicle for the
implementation of the MPs.
A Vignette of Doing Mathematics, The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 2011.
Page 4
Facilitator Notes
FACILITATOR NOTES (Unit 1 Excerpt)

Unit 1: Introducing the Standards for Mathematical Practice
Goal of This Unit
To introduce the Standards for Mathematical Practice (MPs) and to begin working on problems that
exemplify them. Many of the activities today will be revisited later in the course as participants
explore the MPs more deeply.
Agenda
1. Welcome and Introduction. (15 minutes)
2. Getting Started: Maximizing area. (60 minutes)
Participants cut and rearrange rectangles that share the same perimeter.
3. An Overview of the Standards for Mathematical Practice (45 minutes)
Each of the eight MPs is described and discussed.
4. Investigation: SSS and triangle area. (90 minutes)
Participants find the area of various triangles given their side lengths.
5. Investigation: Geometric optimization. (180 minutes)
Participants explore three geometry problems that involve optimization: the airport problem,
the burning tent problem, and the circular pool problem.
6. Mathematical Reflections. (30 minutes)
Participants review the materials explored in this unit and begin to describe how the MPs
influence each activity.
Participant Materials
Handout 1: Maximizing area problem set
Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practice printouts
Handout 2: SSS and triangle area problem set
Handout 3: Unit 1 Mathematical Reflections
Handout 4: Formative Assessment for Unit 1 (optional)
PowerPoint Slides for Unit 1
Protractors
Graph paper
Scissors
Rulers
Geoboards (circular side), 1 small metal Ring and String for each (optional)
Bubble solution and material (optional)
These facilitator notes contain suggestions for presenting these activities based on the cumulative
experience of several implementations of the course in 2011 and 2012. They include suggestions for
how an activity may progress and what results and issues may arise. They are in no way meant to be
a script for how to present the course.
Not included in this sampler.
Page 5
Facilitator Notes
1. Welcome and Introduction 15 minutes [Slide 1]

This quote describes the general idea of why the MPs are
an important part of mathematics education. Hyman Bass
is an eminent American mathematician from the University
of Michigan, where he collaborates with Deborah Ball and
her research team on mathematics education.
2. Getting Started: Maximizing area 60 minutes [Slides 23, Handout 1]

Find the area of various rectangles that share the same perimeter.
This activity demonstrates how MP.8 (Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning) can be
used to show that a square maximizes area for all rectangles with the same perimeter. Later in the
course, participants will see how this geometry connects directly to problems relating to the
factorization of quadratic polynomials. The goal of the activity is to describe a general method for
cutting and rearranging several rectangles that share the same perimeter.
Open Exploration (30 minutes)
Participants explore the questions on Slide 2.
Suggestion:
Participants may benefit from having a few minutes to
think about the question on their own before conferring
with others.
Debrief:
There are a number of different approaches to solving this problem, so it is a good idea to discuss as
many as time allows. Here are two approaches that were presented by participants in previous
workshops:
1. Let a and b be the lengths of the sides of the rectangle.
The perimeter is then 2(a + b) = 32, so a + b = 16 and b = 16 a.
Using substitution, the area can be represented as ab = a(16 a) = a2 + 16a.
So to find maximum area, maximize the function f(a) = a2 + 16a.
Page 6
Facilitator Notes
2. Produce a table showing all possible whole number dimensions, in order, and their respective
areas. Find the maximum area from the table.
Potential Discussion Questions:
a. What is the error for each entry in the table; that is, what is
the difference between the area of the square and each of
the other areas? (The differences are all perfect squares.)
b. How are these differences related to the dimensions of the
rectangles? (This question is explored more fully in the next
section.)
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
b
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Area
15
28
39
48
55
60
63
64
63
60
55
48
39
28
15
Diving Deeper (30 minutes)

At the end of the previous activity, many participants will have conjectured that a square maximizes
area for a fixed perimeter. So, for rectangles of perimeter 32, if an 8 8 square maximizes area, it
should be possible to cut up any other rectangle with the same perimeter and fit it inside that
square, with some of the squares area uncovered. See the Mathematical Overview for more
information.
This activity begins with participants looking more closely at the geometry by exploring the
questions on Slide 3.
Suggestions:
As participants work through more than one example, you
might encourage them to pay attention to their process,
trying to follow the same steps each time.
A prompt of try to do it in only one cut may help some
participants find a more generalizable pattern.
Participants can sketch their ideas, or some may want to
use scissors to cut out rectangles.
Potential Discussion Questions:
1. How can you describe your process generically for any dimension?
2. For each rearrangement, what are the dimensions of the part of the square that remains
uncovered?
Page 7
Facilitator Notes
Debrief:
Here is some actual work of a participant from a previous workshop:
4 12. The piece that needs to be
added to cover the entire square
is (12 8) (8 4), or 4 4.

is (11 8) (8 5), or 3 3.

is (13 8) (8 3), or 5 5.
By working on the specific numerical cases, participants should get a sense for the repetition of the
process they have been following. Again, the goal of the activity is to describe a general method
for cutting and rearranging the rectangle. Describing the algorithm as precisely as possible leads to
a generic solution:
1. The perimeter of an a b rectangle would be 2(a b) . A square of that perimeter would have
a b
sides of length
.
2
Page 8
Facilitator Notes
2. Show how you can fit the a b rectangle inside that square.
What is the size of the piece youd need to add to cover the entire square?
a b
b
2
a b
a
2
a b
2
a b
2
a b
2
This result explains what participants may have noticed in the numerical examples (and alluded
to in discussion question 2 above): the area of the uncovered part is a perfect square.
3. And since the area of the entire square minus the area of the square left uncovered is equal to
the area of the rectangle, you have
a b
2
a b
2
ab
This identity can be established by algebraic transformations and, in fact, many students should
be able to see that the left hand side becomes ab when the binomials are expanded and terms
are collected. So, it might be used as a simple exercise in algebra. But the identity arose in a
purely geometric context.
From this equation, you can derive the Arithmetic Geometric Mean inequality:
a b
2
ab , therefore
a b
2
ab .
This is a good example where algebra and geometry are informed by one another.
...
(Section 3 of Unit 1 is not included in this sampler.)
Page 9
Facilitator Notes
4. Investigation: SSS and triangle area 90 minutes [Slide 20, Handout 2]

Calculating the area of a triangle given its three side lengths.
This activity continues exploring MP.8 (Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning). The
side side side (SSS) theorem in geometry implies that a triangle is determined by its side lengths.
(See the Mathematical Overview for more information.)Through a series of numerical examples,
participants build an algorithm for calculating the area of any triangle given its side lengths, building
towards Herons formula. MP.8 is the main focus of this activity, but MP.7 also plays a role. MP.7
becomes dominant when the activity is revisited in Unit 4, where participants will develop the
formula.
Open Exploration (30 minutes)
Participants explore the question on Slide 20.
Suggestions:
Some participants may already be familiar with Herons
formula. Urge them to work through finding the area
without using the formula.
In addition, participants may be tempted to use
trigonometry (law of sines or cosines) to find the area. You
may want to ask them to avoid trig functions as well.
Debrief:
13 14 15 triangle
This triangle has integer area. Here is work by a participant from a previous workshop:
Draw an altitude inside the
triangle. In the figure, the
participant drew the altitude to the
side of length 15. The two smaller
right triangles that formed (which
share the height of the original
triangle as a leg) have sides of
length 6.6, 11.2, 13 and 8.4, 11.2,
14. So with an altitude of 11.2 and
a base of 15, the area is 84 square
units.
Had the participant used fractions
instead of decimals, it may have
been easier to see that the two
smaller triangles are both
Pythagorean triples: multiply the
Page 10
Facilitator Notes
first by 5 to get the primitive triple 33 56 65. Multiply the second by 514 to get the primitive triple
3 4 5. Keeping rational numbers written as fractions often helps participants see structure that is
not so clear when they convert numbers to decimals. Participants will revisit this habit of delayed
evaluation throughout the course. (Note: This particular participant started to use trigonometric
functions but abandoned it for the Pythagorean Theorem approach.)
You can draw any of the three altitudes. An altitude drawn to the side of length 14 will result in two
triangles that are Pythagorean triples: 5 12 13 and 9 12 15.
17 25 28 triangle
This triangle also has an integer area. If the altitude is drawn to the side with length 25, the two
smaller triangles are Pythagorean triples 8 15 17 and 15 20 25. So the height is 15 and the base is
25, and thus the area is 210 square units. It might be a worthwhile exercise to draw the altitude to
one of the other sides to see that the same method results in the same answer.
5 7 8 triangle
If the altitude is drawn to the side with length 8, the segments defined on that side have length 2.5
and 5.5, and the altitude has length 2.5 3 . The area of the triangle is 10 3 square units.
Note: Some participants might realize that if they draw the altitude to the side of length 8, one of
the triangles formed is a 30 60 90 triangle.
Potential Discussion Question:
How might MP.7 (Look for and make use of structure) help in generalizing this process?
Some participants may delay their calculations while solving the problem. For instance, in the 13
14 15 triangle, a participant may not multiply out 132, 142, or 152, saving all arithmetic until the end.
Doing so makes the structure of the calculation more apparent and assists in finding a general
formula.
Homework:
Find the area of a triangle with side
lengths a, b, and c.
Some participants may attempt to find a
general formula based on their numerical
work. When this topic is revisited at the
beginning of Unit 4, participants will
derive the familiar forms of Herons
formula. During this activity, however, and
as they work through the homework
assignment, they may find a much messier
version, as shown in this participants
work.
Page 11
Facilitator Notes
Mathematical Overview
This first day previews the style of work that is used throughout the course. And it introduces two
activities that participants will revisit later in the course.
The Maximizing area and SSS and triangle area activities are designed to show the value of
abstracting regularity from repeated actions. This mathematical practice, used all over
mathematics, is an effective way to help beginning students develop the skill of describing general
relationships by
1. working through several specific examples, concentrating on getting the rhythm of their
calculations or actions, and then
2. expressing this regularity in precise mathematical language.
Both of these skills take time and effort to develop. The first takes concentrated attention in order
to see beyond the specifics of a process, so that you can focus on the fact that you are executing
the same steps, no matter what the inputs to that process are. The second requires you to shoe
horn your insight into a precise description that is independent of any specific input.
Many teachers are familiar with the fact that, of all rectangles of the same perimeter, the square
maximizes area. Some will know how to prove that. But the Maximizing area activity introduces a
different approach: If an 8 8 square has the largest area among all rectangles of perimeter 32,
then it should be possible to take any rectangle of perimeter 32, cut it up, and fit the pieces inside an
8 8 square, leaving some of the square uncovered. Participants are asked to come up with a
method for doing this experiment with particular rectangles (a 5 11 rectangle, for example), but
they are encouraged to do it in a way that works for any rectangle with perimeter 32. Hence, the
answer to this exercise is a method or algorithma precisely described process that emerges
from a concentrated effort to do the fitting inside in specific cases, but to do it in a way that
doesnt depend on the actual dimensions of the specific cases. Being able to do this is at the heart
of the abstracting regularity practice.
The same practice is at play in SSS and triangle area: because a triangle is determined by the
lengths of its sides, the area of the triangle should be a function of its three side lengths. That is
true, and the function is called Herons formula. But this formula is usually introduced like a rabbit
out of a hat in most geometry courses. In DMP, teachers first find the areas of specific triangles,
given the side lengths (like 13, 14, and 15), in a sequence of carefully chosen examples that help
them develop a general method that will work for every triple of side lengths a, b, and c. As
participants work through the sequence of problems, the same algorithm emerges: break the
triangle into two right triangles and use the Pythagorean Theorem twice (see the Debrief for
Investigation: SSS and triangle area above for details). This essential insight will lead later in the
week (when participants consider structure in expressions) to a proof of Herons formula that
shows how it can be developed in a natural way, generalizing from examples.
Page 12
Participant Handouts
PARTICIPANT HANDOUTS (Unit 1 Excerpt)

Handout 1
Investigation: Maximizing area
1. A rectangle has perimeter 32. What could its area be?
2. Of the rectangles you explored in question 1, which has the largest area?
3. How can you cut a rectangle of perimeter 32 and fit it inside a square of
the same perimeter? Try doing it with rectangles of these dimensions.
a. 4 x 12
b. 5 x 11
c. 3 x 13
4. Describe a process that will work for any rectangle of perimeter 32?
Unit 1 Handout 1
Page 13
Participant Handouts
Handout 2
Investigation: SSS and triangle area
1. Find the area of triangles with these side lengths:

a. 13, 14, 15
b. 17, 25, 28
c.
5, 6, 8
Page 14
Unit 1 Handout 2
ABOUT EDC
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), is a global nonprofit organization that designs, delivers, and
evaluates innovative programs to address some of the worlds most urgent challenges in education,
health, and economic development. We create materials, programs, and services, collaborating with those
who are intended to benefit from the work. Since its origins, EDC has excelled in creating innovative
programs and materials designed specifically to improve mathematics and science teaching and learning
at all grade levels. The Mathematical Practices Institute (MPI) is the result of decades of work focusing on
dramatically improving how mathematics is taught and learned.
ABOUT MPI
EDCs Mathematical Practices Institute (MPI) offers teacher and administrator professional development,
curriculum support, and technical assistance for schools, districts, and states across the country. Through
its programs, MPI provides opportunities and tools for teachers and administrators at all levels to
effectively implement the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Al Cuoco, lead author of Developing Mathematical Practice, directs a variety of EDC curriculum
development, professional development, and education policy initiatives. He is the lead developer of
the CME Project curriculuma problem based, student centered grade 812 curriculum that places
mathematical methods and approaches at the core of learning. He is a widely published author and
presenter on issues such as how to effectively engage students and teachers in developing deep
mathematical understandings, and in appreciating and applying the Common Core State Standards. As co
principal investigator of Implementing the Standards for Mathematical Practice, he is leading the
development of professional development materials that use student dialogues to illustrate the Common
Core State Standards.
In addition to his work at EDC, Cuoco contributes to numerous national efforts to enhance the quality of
mathematics teaching and learning. He served on the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences
writing team that revised The Mathematical Education of Teachers book. In 2010, he testified before the
Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Mathematics for the Workshop on STEM Education. For
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, he served as part of a strategic planning group for the
dissemination of NCTM Focus in High School Mathematics and co authored the Reasoning and Sense Making
in Algebra book for that series.
From 1969 until 1993, Cuoco taught high school mathematics to a wide range of students in the Woburn,
Mass., public schools and served as department chair from 1983 to 1993.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The widespread utility and effectiveness of mathematics

come not just from mastering specific skills, topics, and
techniques. Just as important is the development of the ways
of thinkingthe habits of mindused to create the results.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Education*Development*Center,*Inc.*
Mathematical*Practices*Institute*
43*Foundry*Avenue*
Waltham,*MA*02453*
Phone:*617G618G2523*
Email:*mpi@edc.org*
Website:*mpi.edc.org*

Developing Mathematical Practice in High School - Sampler

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Developing Mathematical Practice in High School - Sampler

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SA

A Course for Teachers