Practice Day

Review day and assessment. When this unit was taught more traditionally in review mode, students were noticeably less focused — the contrast with the earlier thinking-task days was apparent. Traditional review tends to confirm to students that the thinking work is over and the performance begins. A review format that still requires mathematical reasoning — a rich problem requiring multiple similarity tools, or a CYU set where justification is built into separate sub-parts — keeps students more engaged.

 

Assessment note from Year 1: most students grasped the material but largely ignored questions asking them to justify steps or methods. The diagnosis: they probably knew how, but did not read carefully enough to see that justification was explicitly requested. The fix for next year is already built in — justification is required as a separate labeled sub-part (a, b, c) rather than embedded in a single question. On similarity proofs, students generally had the correct argument but did not follow the flow chart proof structure practiced in Units 3 and 4. Make the connection explicit during board work throughout the unit: the same justification-at-every-step expectation that applied in proof writing applies here. The similarity shortcut is the antecedent; the proportion is the consequent. Both must appear.