Planning the Lesson Mrs.

Kellys ninth grade algebra class had just been introduced to exponential functions three class periods before I taught my lesson. Mrs. Kelly had devoted much of these three class periods to determining the proper growth rate from an exponential story problem, knowing that this would be a difficult concept for students to grasp. She had made use of a paper-folding analogy to determine the percentage that was lost over time and the percentage that remained. While I believe this helped students considerably, I feared that they would become too fixated on the procedure and forget the actual mathematical meaning of an exponential function. While searching for an activity that would help emphasize the concept of exponential decay, I came across a lesson from the Core-Plus Mathematics text that involved the exploration of the Sierpinski Carpet (http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/1st/unitsamples/pdfs/C1U6_439-448.pdf). The exploration was very structured and procedural in nature, and I began to wonder how students would approach the problem if they were given the problem with minimal scaffolding. I began to develop an activity that would allow for this and titled it Pat the Planner (see attached handouts). In this activity, students are given a context in which they can talk about the patterns they observe in the several stages of the Sierpinski Carpet, but they are provided with very few indications about how they should go about finding the area of the black-shaded region in any particular stage of the sequence. To begin my lesson, I planned on outlining the story described in Part 1 of the activity and giving students a few minutes to individually work out the area of the black region in the first stage of the Sierpinski Carpet. After students had had sufficient time, I

intended to call the class together and discuss the several different solution methods. Through this initial exploration and discussion, I hoped to orient the students to the objective of the more difficult task in Part 2 and hoped to reveal the efficiency of using fractions to solve the problem. This would hopefully provide students with something to consider as they approached the more challenging aspects of the task. Next, I intended to explain the story outlined in Part 2 of the activity and to allow students to work in groups of three in order to solve the task. I would explain that although the solution did not involve Pats intermediate city plans (i.e., the second and third stages of the Sierpinski Carpet pattern), it may be helpful to work with those plans as they explored in their groups. I would monitor groups as they worked and help any struggling students to at least make progress. Finally, once students had wrestled with the problem for about half an hour, I would call the class back together and facilitate a conversation to discuss possible solution methods to the question posed in Part 2 and to help students see the pictorial representation of exponential decay. I anticipated several student misconceptions to arise throughout the lesson. First, I expected that many students would focus on the area of the white regions as opposed to the black regions the activity asks about. The white regions are visually at the forefront of the image, with the black regions making up the background (see images in attached handouts). I expected many students to perform correct calculations (e.g., forming ratios and proportions) for the white regions, but fail to make sense of those calculations in terms of the black regions. Additionally, given the impulse that students have to find geometric solutions to visual problems (Merseth, 2003, p. 55), I expected many students to attempt to use rulers in order to calculate areas and ratios especially since I would

inform students that there were rulers available before they began exploring in groups. While this method may provide relatively accurate solutions for the first few stages of the Sierpinski Carpet, it quickly becomes an inefficient and largely inaccurate process once the stages become more complex. Finally, I imagined that because exponential equations were relatively new for these students, they might mistakenly attempt to express the relationships they observe in terms of linear expressions. After all, the sequences and expressions used to describe linear and exponential functions are often very similar, with only the rates of change helping to distinguish between the two (Lempp, 2008). Both linear and exponential equations indicate y-intercept terms, and both indicate the number of times that the constant rate of change should be applied; the only difference lies in whether the constant rate of change is additive or multiplicative (Lempp, 2008). Since students would be much more accustomed to thinking linearly, I believed it would be very common for answers to appear in y=mx+b form and for students to believe their justification was reasonable. Throughout the course of the lesson, I intended to help students explore these misconceptions while they gradually came to understand a realistic application for exponential functions. Teaching the lesson While the lesson generally went according to plan, the biggest issue I encountered was the amount of time it took students to complete the task. Because I had allotted seventy minutes for students to work with a single problem, I had anticipated that we would be able to look at it in great depth and discuss multiple different solution methods in detail. However, as the lesson progressed and I realized just how difficult the task was for several students, it occurred to me that it might have been better split over the course

of two days. Additionally, I noticed that students were developing several solution methods that I had not thought of, and so the concepts and misconceptions that I had to work with were slightly different than what I had anticipated. The lesson began easily enough. I explained the story problem, rather than reading it verbatim, to better engage students and to ensure they understood the scenario. I then mentioned the presence of rulers at the front of the classroom, and asked students to solve Part 1 of the activity (Video 1, 2:00). After a couple of minutes, I noticed that several students were still having difficulty getting started. Since this first task was not meant to be the challenging portion of the activity, I decided to allow students to share their strategies with a partner to make sure everyone at least had one idea of how they might approach the problem (4:13). Eventually, I called the class back together for a discussion (8:53). After collecting the three different solutions that students arrived at and writing these on the board, I addressed the two incorrect solutions by asking how those answers were obtained. I took 10,000 times .9, explained Jenna a student who got $9000 as her answer (9:41). Okay, wheres the .9 coming from? I asked her. If you put a bunch of squares all over the entire box, there would be nine of them, she responded. Then that one little white one counts as one of them, so you take 90%, which is [the amount] left. Natasha was quick to point out the flaw in Jennas reasoning: Theres only nine - there would have to be ten squares to be 90% (11:14). With the class seemingly convinced by Natashas argument, another student explained how he arrived at a solution of $8750: I knew that the whole thing equaled $10,000, and I divided that by 8 because thats how much we paved. And then I got $1,250 and then subtracted that from $10,000, because that one spot is not (inaudible) (11:54). The class

responded with silence, and I realized when only Natashas hand went up again that we would need to do some basic fraction work before moving forward. I dont think you can do it that way, explained Natasha, because I think you have to figure outyou have to divide it by 9 to figure out one square (12:47). After I clarified her reasoning, I asked her to explain the rest of her solution (13:24), as she had originally volunteered the correct answer of $8888.89. Then I took $10,000 minus that numberand I got $8888.8 forever repeating, she stated. While a few other students claimed to have gotten the same answer, none of them offered another approach to the problem (13:55). This was troubling to me, since I recalled seeing the fraction of 8/9 written on several papers as I walked around, and working with the fraction of 8/9 was going to help students more quickly discover the exponential relationship in Part 2. However, in the pressure of the moment, I had forgotten who had used this method, so I proceeded to guide the students there (14:31). Instead of subtracting this one ninth, what can I do with just this 8/9? I asked, referencing fractions already written on the board (14:38). Students eventually realized that by simply multiplying 8/9 by $10,000 would generate the same solution that Natasha had arrived at. Interestingly, not one student had opted to use a ruler to explore this task, and all responses during the class discussion were algebraic in nature. I realized at this point that, if students had not used a geometric approach for Part 1, they were highly unlikely to use it to solve the more complex components of Part 2. After offering students an opportunity to ask questions (though admittedly not using sufficient wait time), I explained the next portion of the task and set the students to work. As I monitored each group, I realized that most students had taken my advice and

began by looking at the second stage of the Sierpinski pattern. However, I noted that the most common solution method was one that I had not even anticipated. Students were dividing the entire grid including the large center museum region into police station-sized squares. They were then counting the number of these white police station squares in the second stage of the pattern and subtracting that from the total number of police station squares in the entire grid (I can be hard revoicing this strategy at 36:04 of Video 1, while Mrs. Kelly approves of another groups use of fractions and points them towards the same subtraction-centered method at 35:45). Other students used a method that generated the correct answer, but was so unanticipated that I did not fully understand it until after the period had ended. Essentially, they were realizing that each white square was one-ninth of the next-largest white square in each diagram. Thus, to get the correct solution for the second stage of the pattern, they were multiplying (1-1/9) * 1/9 and then subtracting that answer from (11/9). As these students continued to explain their method as it applied to stages 3 and 4 of the pattern, I got lost in a sea of one minuses and one-ninths and simply provided generic responses such as, this method works, but see if you can find an easier way to express it. After the lesson, I contemplated what these students were doing, and realized they were just multiplying (1-1/9)^x in a complicated sequence of steps. Especially after this realization, I was surprised at just how fixated the students had been at the idea of subtracting the white from the whole instead of focusing only on the black. While this was congruent with my expectation that students would focus primarily on the white regions of the diagram, I found it surprising that they had trouble making the conversion from (1-1/9) to 8/9 even after multiple stages of the pattern.

With roughly 18 minutes left in class, I realized that no matter what move I made, I would be cheating the students out of an educational experience. Most groups were intently hard at work, and I absolutely felt that, given more time, every group could have made much more progress. Not a single student had given up, and I could hear new discoveries being made from every angle. However, I also realized that if I allowed the students to continue working in groups, we would have no time to discuss the problem as a class, and students would receive little if any resolution to the task they had been struggling with for the past half an hour. Somewhat reluctantly, I called the class together (Video 1, 41:54). With no perfect solution of y=(8/9)^x on any student papers, I had difficulty sequencing the students that I wanted to present. For the sake of time, I called on Jake, a student who was able to at least get the correct solution. I was hoping that with a few minor tweaks, we would be able to arrive at the desired exponential pattern. Jake, however, performed one of the messy combinations of calculations referenced above. To do (8/9)*(8/9), Jake did (1/9)*(8/9)*8. Depicting each of these components visually was both difficult to do and difficult to explain on the spot, and by the end of his explanation, even I was losing track of what was what (Video 1, 44:3046:33). Deciding that this was a bit too complicated to transform into the (8/9)*(8/9) method, I asked for alternative methods for arriving at the same answer (46:39). However, the responses that I got seemed to be equally as complex on surface level. Eventually, running low on time, I decided to simply reveal the exponential method. But feeling constrained by the end of the hour and faced with such a complex diagram, I became slightly tongue-tied while giving my explanation. Many students were confused,

so I promised them that Mrs. Kelly would finish discussing the y=(8/9)^x solution the following day. I instead focused my remaining two minutes on identifying and labeling the exponential components of that final solution. I felt that it was important to at least make that connection, since this was the primary goal of my lesson. Reflecting Looking back on this lesson, I feel like students very adequately achieved one of my lesson objectives: being able to translate a geometric pattern into an algebraic expression. Although not necessarily exponential in nature, students were able to translate what they were observing visually into a numeric calculation (e.g., Video 1, 36:04, 44:30). By and large, these descriptions were accurate, and I was impressed by students accomplishments; I was thrilled that virtually all of them were willing to tackle the problem in an abstract way instead of using ruler measurements to calculate specific values. Moreover, when discussing the various solutions that students arrived at, the class was able to follow along and did not appear to have many questions (e.g., 14:40, 17:00). Thus, with respect to my goal of expressing geometric patterns algebraically, I would consider the lesson to be a success. My other two goals (see attached lesson plan), however, were not achieved to the extent that I would have liked to see. Only at the very end of the lesson did I make a connection to exponential decay, and we did not even begin to look at Part 4, where students would have a chance to use algebra to predict geometric patterns. As opposed to any one deficiency in my teaching, I believe the root cause of these shortcomings to merely be poor time management. In retrospect, it is apparent that for a class that rarely works with geometric figures, my ambitions for this lesson were quite high. I expected

students to not only explore a geometric pattern and attempt to express it algebraically, but also to come to the right expression that coincided with the larger exponential unit they were studying. From observing my lesson, it is clear that not both of these objectives were reasonable to fit into one class period. If given an additional class period, I would have easily decided to split the lesson into two parts and spent one class period on each objective. However, given only one class period, I would have narrowed my focus to only one of these two goals. Mrs. Kelly repeatedly mentioned to me how excited she was to see her students using math to describe the picture. This suggests that this skill is not often practiced, and it may have therefore been beneficial to focus on only that aspect of the task and put the connection to exponential decay on the back burner. However, because my lesson was included in the exponential unit, and the more relevant goal was for students to see how exponential decay appears algebraically, it would have probably been more prudent to focus less on the exploration of an algebraic expression and more on the identification of the exponential expression. To do this, I would have placed a much stronger emphasis on the fraction of 8/9 that students successfully derived during Part 1 of the task. After showing the class the patterns in part 2, I would have asked how students thought the fraction 8/9 was connected to those diagrams. After recording some initial thoughts on the board, I would have instructed students to focus on that fraction as they explored the diagrams in Part 2 and to determine how it was connected to the pattern they observed. At the very least, this would have directed the discussion in an exponential direction, and the emphasis would have been placed on the pattern as a whole not merely the first diagram in Part 2, which is what students in my lesson ultimately focused on.

To better illustrate the difficulty of time management that I experienced during this lesson, consider the following outline of how the 70-minute class period was spent: Time Frame 9:01 9:06 9:06 9:08 9:08 9:11 9:11 9:16 9:16 9:19 9:19 9:23 9:23 9:27 9:27 9:49 9:49 9:52 9:52 10:06 to memory limits) be teaching todays lesson I explain Part 1 of the task Students work independently on Part 1 Students work with partners on Part 1 and ask adults for help. I monitor student work I review incorrect solutions and ensure students understand why they are incorrect I review correct solution methods and emphasize how the correct answer can be obtained by multiplying the initial value by 8/9 I explain Part 2 of the task Students work in groups on Part 2 of the task. I monitor work, help students, prepare materials for discussion Jakes method (see Teaching section above) is discussed. I revoice his reasoning and attempt to clarify it for other students I review another students solution method and attempt to make Students are confused and I attempt to clarify. For the sake of time, I ask students to accept equation and to classify it (i.e., realize its exponential). I ask students to identify its components (i.e., initial value and growth rate) and mention that Mrs. Kelly will finish explaining tomorrow 10:06 10:11 Mrs. Kelly passes back quizzes from yesterday and reviews answers (not on video due connections to Jake. I then try to make the leap to exponential decay. Activity Mrs. Kelly greets class, reviews housekeeping items, explains I will

By 9:19, it is apparent that I may have been over-reaching with my lesson goals. Students worked for a full 8 minutes on Part 1, had difficulty finding answers

independently, and still produced several incorrect solutions. Combined, the time spent on Part 1 extended beyond the 10 minutes allotted in my lesson plan. However, at this point, I was still convinced that I could accomplish my entire lesson. I set students to work on Part 2 and did not fully realize that I would be short on time until roughly 9:40. Students had been working for ten minutes, and many of them were still struggling to make some real progress. I decided to allow students to keep working and attempted to guide them towards the fraction of 8/9 for another ten minutes or so. At 9:52, I realized that no student had the solution that I was hoping to arrive at, and I had to make a decision: do I allow students to keep working and discover the exponential solution on their own, or do I stay on track with my lesson plan, call the class back together, and hope to arrive at the solution as a group? I decided to call the class back together. I quickly realized that it was going to be difficult to make a connection to exponentials based only on the work students had done, and I finally felt the full effects of the limited time available. Could I have redone the lesson, I would have definitely adjusted my use of class time by modifying the lesson goals as described above. Comparison to Nancy Upshaw When reflecting upon my lesson, my thoughts were quickly drawn to the case of Nancy Upshaw (Smith, Silver, & Stein, 2005). Upshaw provided her students with relatively complex goals (e.g., determining how many soccer balls are needed to fill up a classroom) but no specific strategies for achieving them. She allowed her students to explore problems and develop solution methods on their own. In this respect, I feel like my lesson nicely paralleled Upshaws; my task required much exploration in order to

answer a rather dense question. However, the teacher moves that Upshaw and I each enacted revealed many important distinctions in the quality of our respective lessons. First, even with no specific solution method in mind, Upshaw was careful to notice inefficient approaches to her problem and to redirect student focus. For instance, when she observes a student group trying to build a 1000-cube box in order to merely make an estimate, Upshaw intervenes and asks, Will you have enough cubes to build an entire 1000-cube block? She then offers an alternative line of attack (namely, making a sketch) and leaves the group with a more relevant issue to tackle (Why should the cube be measured in centimeters?) (p. 62). On the other hand, even though my task did have a specific solution method that I was hoping students would find, I did a poor job of refocusing inefficient efforts. Concerned with allowing students to think independently, I offered hints regarding the exponential solution only to those groups that were stuck and making no progress. For the other groups, I simply asked for them to explain their strategy and pointed out any errors they were making. In retrospect, these latter groups may have easily reached the solution I was striving for if I had asked a few carefullychosen questions, such as Do you think there is a more efficient way to get the same answer? or How do you think this relates to the fraction of 8/9 that we found in Part 1? These questions would have still promoted student thinking, but may have refocused it in a more productive direction. Additionally, Upshaw maintains a constructivist approach towards learning even when students claim that they are unable to get started. She asks such students to state everything that they already know about the problem, insisting that they always know something, and they should not give up so easily (p. 65). This method allows Upshaws

students to eventually make progress on the problem themselves (p. 65). In contrast, I was quick to lecture students who claimed to be stuck. I would present a succinct review of the pertinent information and offer a potential way in which to think about the problem. In fact, the only questions that I can recall asking these stuck students are Does this make sense? and Do you understand? Out of a desire to get these students started, I may have inadvertently deprived them of one of the most important parts of exploration activities: building upon prior knowledge. If I had taken the time to put Upshaws techniques into practice, students may have been more challenged by, invested in, and ultimately rewarded by the task. Still, there are some teacher moves that both Upshaw and I executed effectually. Both of us were quick to correct misconceptions that were far removed from the task at hand. Upshaw, for example, ends a debate regarding the meaning of the word cubic by informing students of the correct definition (p. 63). Similarly, I corrected several students who incorrectly determined the number of police station squares that surrounded the museum square. By roughly eyeballing the diagram, some students arrived at answers of 9 instead of 8. Although I could have used these misconceptions to push student thinking (e.g., Is it possible to have an even number of police stations on each side of the museum and still have an odd number overall?), I decided to simply provide the correct answer. The larger goal of my lesson depended on being able to realize the importance of the fraction 8/9, and I did not want a simple counting error to prevent students from making that realization. Taken together, these observations suggest that Nancy Upshaw was able to interact with her pupils in a way that refined student thinking while keeping the task

student-driven. While I am on the right track, I need additional practice in order to conduct an equally effective lesson.

Name: ___________________________________ References Lempp, S. (2008). Lecture notes for Math 135: Algebraic reasoning for teaching mathematics. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin. Merseth, K.K. (Ed.). (2003). Windows on Teaching Math: Case Studies in Middle and Secondary Classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Smith, M. S., Silver, E.A., & Stein, M.K. (2005) Improving Instruction in Geometry and Measurement. Teachers College Press.

Name: ___________________________________

Pat the Planner: Part 1

Pat the City Planner needs to design the layout of a new city, which will feature the Museum of ______________________. He decides to put the museum directly in the center of town (as shown below). Deciding that he wants nothing else in his city, Pat asks Tommy the Tar Guy how much it will cost to pave over the rest of the city. Tommy, who never took Algebra I, is unable to provide Pat with an answer. All I know, Tommy said, is that to pave the ENTIRE city, it would cost you $10,000. How much would Pat have to pay for only the pavement that he wants?

Name: ___________________________________

Pat the Planner: Part 2

Pat the Planner is about to hand Tommy the Tar Guy $8888.89, when he realizes that he wants to make some adjustments to his city. Because the objects in the museum are so valuable, he decides he wants police stations surrounding the building, as shown in Pats Plan #2. That way, anybody who tries to steal from the museum will surely be caught. Next, Pat realizes that the police officers that work at the stations are not going to want to commute to work every morning. He decides to build some houses surrounding each police station, so the officers can live in town. This is shown in Pats Plan #3. But now, Pat realizes that the police officers are going to want some trees outside of their homes. So he decides to plant trees all around each of the houses in his city, as shown in Pats Final Plan. Finally, content with his plan, Pat the Planner approaches Tommy the Tar Guy once more and asks how much it will cost to pave the rest of his city. I told you all I knew before, said Tommy. To pave the ENTIRE city, it will cost you $10,000. How much should Pat the Planner pay Tommy the Tar Guy?

Name: ___________________________________

PP Pats Plan #2

Pats Plan #3

Pats Final Plan

Name: ___________________________________

Pat the Planner: Part 3

How much should Pat the Planner pay Tommy the Tar Guy? Method 1

Method 2

Method 3

The method above that I circled looks a lot like _______________ ___________ Find an equation that represents this situation: Part of the equation What it represents

Name: ___________________________________

Pat the Planner: Part 4 Pat the Planner continues to add objects to his city using the same pattern. How much will pavement cost if he adds bushes around each tree, and flowers around each bush?

Find the area of the black shaded regions below. The area of the entire large triangle is 1 square unit.