Geometry Semester 1 Stage 1

[Jackson Sevieux]

Please download the attached pdf file.

A copy of the living document (Beau & Tim) can be found here: 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xmm048jeln0sik/Geometry%20Semester%201%20Stage%201.docx

By the way, Beau & Tim, we need to set up a group dropbox so that we don't have to send the document via email.  I will message you with more details.

[Karl Romero]

Great job Geometry team!

On a side note, be sure to download the document and open in Microsoft Word. The formatting in Dropbox viewer is a bit off.

[Karl Romero]

Good morning Geometry team,

Great job everybody and I believe a personal commendation is in order for Jackson! 

I like the way you formatted and designed this first stage of the curriculum map. You are right about the strikethroughs as being part of the design of the standards for the course. One suggestion though for the transfer goals. Try to limit them to one or two (I usually go for one) desired long-term, genuine and independent accomplishment/s. I see them as how the math practice standards of the module are observed in the student long after the module is finished. You can go beyond the CCSS toolbox to do this and look at other resources. Again, overall you guys did an awesome job for this stage!

[Karl Romero]

Thanks Tim. Good job Geometry team!

[Karl Romero]

Good afternoon Geometry team,

Awesome job on modules 6-10! Consider the following comments and feedback for your revisions.

General: 

1) Consider adding some overarching essential questions (EQ) and understandings (U) that highlight the real-world applications of each unit. For example in module 6 which talks about Right Triangle Relationships and Trigonometry:

• EQ: Why are right triangles important?
• U: Right triangles can be used to model several real-world situations including finding the height of objects and distances. 

... or something similar. Overarching U's and EQ's point beyond the specifics of a unit to the larger, transferable ideas that spiral

throughout the curriculum (from McTighe). You only need about one or two overarching U's and EQ's.

2) For the Acquisition section, you can delete the items with the label Not Specified.

3) For standards with a star icon, include a legend that will give a short definition of the label to readers.

Module 6:

• You can delete the word Students at the beginning of each Transfer goal. 
• Missing Understanding for G-MG.3.

[Jackson Sevieux]

version 1.3 (Internal document for the Geometry team), with minor updates. 

(a) Formatting needs to be standardized (ie, font, tab spacing, strikethroughs, hyperlinks, etc. 

(b) non-specified references in the acquisition section need to be omitted, 

(c) modeling standards need to be addressed, 

(d) 1-2 overarching essential questions/understandings need to be established/identified,

(e) reference to students in the transfer goals needs to be omitted.

[Jackson Sevieux]

I've applied a heavy round of updates to the document which is now in it's version 1.4.  Please use this version (or a later version) to develop Geometry stage 2.

[Christy Knudsen]

I noticed when looking over your Stage 1 that there are essential questions and understandings that are the same in multiple credits. This seems strange to me because most credits have its own concepts that are being addressed, which means there would be essential questions specific to those concepts. Although the same standard is being addressed, doesn't mean that the same concept in that standard is being covered. Each standard covers a broader understanding.

I was just curious on the reason why that was done.

[Jackson Sevieux]

There are broad overarching understandings that encompass more than one credit and some that are limited to a single credit.  When we decided on the overarching understandings/questions, we only looked at the standards to keep it simple.  We felt that in the design component, we could do more bridging across standards, but we wanted to take the purest approach possible at this point.  I know with what our team has developed, we have more than enough to begin with the next stage.  But I imagine that we could further develop the overarching understandings by using the topical descriptions from the ccsstoolbox.  I suppose that we could go back and update it a bit to help teachers make sense of how to utilize the curriculum our curriculum maps.  Thanks for the feedback Christy!

By the way, if my feedback on other teams work seems non-existent, it is because I wasn't sure of the approach that individual teams took in designing their modules.  I gather that it is a rather intimate process and that standardization of approaches wouldn't be necessary unless the teams would be more collaborative in this stage.  Can I ask you as well as other groups how you guys determined overarching understandings that would encompass numerous standards within the units?  Also, did you notice that some of your overarching understandings bridged across units as you dealt with similar standards?

[Jackson Sevieux]

Last minute exhaustive update to modules 1-6

I applied suggestions made by Christy on Thursday last week to enhance the understandings/essential questions section.  Apparently, the wiki-teacher resource didn't provide a sufficient treatment to help teachers make sense of the overall understandings implied by the standard.  Hence, I utilized the OnCore Geometry textbook to assist me with this process, but it seems that I am a little behind schedule due to the relatively short notice.  Thanks for the suggestions.  The remaining modules are on the way!

[Karl Romero]

Thanks Jackson!