This was a new activity for me, and Kath will tell you, I felt exactly the same as you did. You could have used me as the visual.

I like the connection you made to claims and the conceptual build in your overview is logical and creative.

When I read dot point 6, Sometimes Never Always, I could anticipate some confusion due to the common misconceptions learners have.

My quick thinking is:

How about an activity something like …you get dealt a number of the Property cards and you have to draw a shape that satisfies all properties. It might be that you are in a pair and each of you pick one card. Both of you draw a shape that satisfies both cards without consulting and then compare and discuss. This could also work for bigger groups. It is a fluency task but might be a quick consolidation before you move onto the more complex considerations.

Thanks for sharing. I was 50-50 about using the task again but I will definitely do that now.

]]>I liked your question: what’s the most precise name we can give this shape?

It made me try and think of another way to phrase the question about trapeziums and parallelograms. They sound a bit like dad jokes.

eg What do you call a trapezium with two sets of parallel sides? A: a parallelogram.

Here’s some more:

What do you call a trapezium with two sets of parallel sides and a right angle?

What do you call a trapezium with 3 right angles?

What do you call a trapezium with two sets of parallel sides, a right angle and 2 adjacent sides of equal length?

What do you call a quadrilateral with 2 right angles and only one set of parallel sides?

As I wrote these I tried to think about the minimum info needed. It made me realise:

* that I could focus on different attributes but that some determined others.

* that there were multiple ways I could describe a shape.

* that there’s another attribute I relied on: internal angle sum of a quadrilateral is always 360 degrees.

I love that your blog post made me think differently about how I could approach teaching this. Thanks!

]]>