identification and classification of shapes

[ldacey]

I appreciate the comments regarding when students are expected to learn formal definitions of polygons (a term missing from the k-5 geometry standards). My question is even more basic. Many of the k-5 geometry standards list specific shapes, for example, 3.G.1 includes the statement: Recognize rhombuses, rectangles, and squares as examples of quadrilaterals, and draw examples of quadrilaterals that do not belong to any of these subcategories. The specificity of this list, without a qualifying phrase such as for example, suggests that students do not need to recognize trapezoids, parallelograms, and kites as examples of quadrilaterals. In fact, parallelograms are never mentioned in the standards at these grade levels. Conversely, though the progressions document lists several shape names that should be introduced at the kindergarten level, the standard does not: K.G2: Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientation or size. This open-ended statement offers no guidance as to the specific shapes students should be able to identify though circles, rectangles, squares, and triangles are listed in the introduction. Also, what am I missing about the cluster name at this level? I see Identify and describe shapes, but other times, including in this blog I see a parenthetical phrase listing two-dimensional and three-dimensional shapes. I understand the argument that ways of knowing/understanding grow over the years, rather than the types of shapes explored, but teachers would be greatly served by further guidance in the standards themselves. This leads me to my overall concern for this domain, the challenge of revision. Have standards been created that would be politically impossible to revise?

[Bill McCallum]

Lots of questions here. First, on the rhombuses, rectangles and squares, notice the phrase “and others” earlier in the standard. The intention was not to exclude parallelograms or any other particular type of of quadrilateral. Rather, the intention was to not require parallelograms. Listing every single type might have been taken as a requirement. The main point is to begin to see how different types can be included in larger more general category. The exact list of specific shapes is not important.

The cluster heading “Reason with shapes and their attributes” is consistent through Grades 1–3 … not sure what the question is here.

As for revising the standards, your guess is as good as mine. My preference would be a long revision cycle, say 10 years. Not because the standards don’t need revision, but we need time to work with them to do a thoughtful revision that isn’t just a cacophony of everybody’s favorite modifications.

[Author]

Posts