Tracey C.

Brown Rice
MTH 611: K-8 Geometry
July 5, 2016

Reflection Log 7
This weeks elementary marathon problem was fun to problem solve and think through.

When problem solving, my group used more of a trial and error approach. Three precut

perfect squares, ranging from 1x1 to 15 x 15, were selected and aligned by their edges. If the

area formed a triangle, then the experiment worked. Moving from Van Hieles

Visualization level to Deduction level, we took the concept of it working to a deeper level

by classifying the formed triangles in order to form a task generalization or rule. We found

that all consecutive prefect squares except for the 1x1, 2x2, 3x3 combination formed squares.

Within sets of three, representing the three triangle sides, the distance between each perfect

squares area didnt matter (i.e. 11x11, 13x13, 14 x14 acute, scalene combination = 121

units^2, 169 units^2, 196 units^2 and forms an even and odd distance between the given area

amounts while a 6x6, 7x7, 8x8 acute, scalene combination = 36 units^2, 49 units^2, 64

units^2 and an odd distance difference between each interval); however, there was something

about the 1x1 perfect square that stood out, as when included in any combination, a triangle

did not form.

From the work weve done above, a few generalizations were evident. I noticed that

sequential perfect squares (i.e. 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 up to 13x13, 14x14, 15x15) worked. When

connecting a side of each of the three perfect squares by their vertices, a triangle formed in

the area. In addition, when the area differs from the dimensions, a triangle was formed. This

proves why the 1x1 perfect square, with an area of 1, caused more of an open triangle to

form, where negative space had to be used to form an actual triangle. When analyzing the

dimension combinations even further, 2 of the 3 dimensions cannot equal the third dimension

or else a line (straight angle) will form opposed to a triangle. For example, when a 2x2 and
3x3 perfect square is paired with a 5x5 perfect square, a straight angle is formed, but also a

gap between the two lesser dimensions is formed because though the lengths are the same on

either side, the total areas differ (3x3 + 2x2 < 5x5 or 13 < 25).

In comparison to Kens group, they used a more systematic approach. Though my

groups thinking helped them visually prove why 2 smaller pieces or 1 larger piece of gold

should be selected per the task, they when deeper in terms of Deduction. Triangles were

classified and determined areas were used to prove which selected piece(s) of gold would be

the better choice. Kens group helped me in my flexibility of thinking in terms of connecting

my thinking back to the task; however, a part of the middle and high school rich task too

helped me see a tiered connection. Though using circles to determine gold weights, there

was a radius and length connection. Two pink circles are the same as two obtuse angles and

when paired with a yellow circle, this visual is the same as the 5x5, 7x7 and 12x12 non-

example on my groups chart. Just like when a line is formed when the perfect square lengths

are compared and the dimension areas differ at the same time (5+7 = 12; 3x3 + 2x2

< 5x5 or 13 < 25), the radius of the yellow circle is similarly the same as two pink circles

(5 = 2.5 + 2.5) and subsequently, the one yellow and two pink total weights (areas) differ.

My Group

Kens Group

My Group (Left), Kens Group (Center), Middle & High School Task (Left)