I mentioned the "airplane" method for factoring in a recent post. Someone asked me what that was, so I thought I'd share.

I have seen a lot of methods for factoring a quadratic with a leading coefficient. Out of the ones I've tried, this is my favorite. The analogy to an airplane is a bit of a stretch, but students seem to remember it pretty well. So I'll take it.

I should also mention that, before I show this to students, I always spend some time letting them work on these by trial and error. I figure a process like this is worthless if they don't actually understand what they are doing. Once I feel like students understand the concept but they are still struggling to get every problem to work, I show them this. We treat it like a shortcut, and boy do they appreciate it!

Here is an example:

First, my students know they will need two binomials, so I start with two sets of parenthesis. Then I put the leading coefficient in each parenthesis. Hopefully, the students have a problem with this. We talk about why it is a problem, and I promise them that we will get rid of the extra 2 before we're all done.

Then, multiply a and c. (See the airplane wings? Use your imagination.)

Look for two numbers with product ac and sum b. (Propeller? I know this is really a stretch.)

Put those numbers in the parenthesis.

Divide the extra 2. (The landing? Maybe.) It is pretty cheesy, but when students are having trouble I can say something like "you forgot the landing", and they know what I mean.

Done.

For something like this, you may need to divide both binomials. I point out how dividing by 3 and by 2 is the same as dividing by 6. We just choose the division that will keep integers.

Happy factoring!

## Friday, December 9, 2011

## Wednesday, December 7, 2011

### Figuring Out Factoring

I have been thinking a lot about factoring lately. My algebra 2 students really struggle with it, and we have only factored quadratics (no sum/difference of cubes or grouping yet). I am worried because our first unit after winter break is rational expressions/equations. This unit is challenging when you CAN factor well, and almost impossible if you can't.

I am sure it will be necessary to take a few days to work on factoring before we start rationals. I need to review quadratics, teach cubes and grouping, and put them all together. I am working on how to structure that.

I have been doing some reading and searching for ideas. It seems that almost every method out there requires students to memorize some sort of process. (Except for this, and I am not sure my students are ready for that). As far as algorithms go, I am happy with what I've been using.

There are two issues that I want to address:

1. Helping students make a connection between what they SEE (trinomial, difference of squares, four terms, cubes, etc.) and what they DO (write two binomials using your preferred method, grouping, use a formula, or whatever).

2. Helping students get through problems where more than one method is required. (Like factoring out a GCF and then factoring the trinomial, or using grouping and then recognizing that one of the binomials is a difference of squares).

Here is a flow-chart I sketched out this morning:

I am picturing this on the white board, with an answer box next to it. You could 'drop' a polynomial into the top box and it comes out factored. If there was a GCF, you could put it in the answer box and then examine the remaining part and possibly drop it into another box. You could then take the pieces that come out of the second box and either add them to the answer box or drop them into another box. This all seems a little elementary, but I want it to be very obvious and very clear . . .

I am still refining this and hope to use it for the beginning of second semester. I will write about the final product. In the mean time, suggestions welcome. :)

I am sure it will be necessary to take a few days to work on factoring before we start rationals. I need to review quadratics, teach cubes and grouping, and put them all together. I am working on how to structure that.

I have been doing some reading and searching for ideas. It seems that almost every method out there requires students to memorize some sort of process. (Except for this, and I am not sure my students are ready for that). As far as algorithms go, I am happy with what I've been using.

There are two issues that I want to address:

1. Helping students make a connection between what they SEE (trinomial, difference of squares, four terms, cubes, etc.) and what they DO (write two binomials using your preferred method, grouping, use a formula, or whatever).

2. Helping students get through problems where more than one method is required. (Like factoring out a GCF and then factoring the trinomial, or using grouping and then recognizing that one of the binomials is a difference of squares).

Here is a flow-chart I sketched out this morning:

I am picturing this on the white board, with an answer box next to it. You could 'drop' a polynomial into the top box and it comes out factored. If there was a GCF, you could put it in the answer box and then examine the remaining part and possibly drop it into another box. You could then take the pieces that come out of the second box and either add them to the answer box or drop them into another box. This all seems a little elementary, but I want it to be very obvious and very clear . . .

I am still refining this and hope to use it for the beginning of second semester. I will write about the final product. In the mean time, suggestions welcome. :)

## Thursday, December 1, 2011

### Fraction Exponents. Easy.

Have you ever found yourself teaching a certain thing a certain way for years, and then one day you think about changing your explanation just a teeny tiny bit? And the new way makes infinite more sense to students, and the thing that used to be impossibly hard is now easy? And then you wonder what took you so long to find that more easy/obvious way of explaining something?

That happened to me today with fractions as exponents.

I won't bother to mention how I used to teach it. It was bad. Very bad.

Today, I started by showing them this, and~~they all shouted~~ several people went "x squared!".

Then I asked them HOW they knew it was x squared. Somebody pointed out that three x-squareds multiply to equal x^6. Someone else said that you divide 6 by 3.

I made a big deal about writing x^(6/3) before writing the answer as x squared. And we did several more of these including some square roots, so they could see that you divide by two.

Then I showed them this, and gave some time to think about it and write down what they thought the answer should be.

Almost every single student wrote down x^(2/3)! And there were angels singing.

Then we worked on going backwards, which was no biggie at all. Given x^(1/2), students could easily rewrite as square root of x and so on.

And then I didn't know what to do, because it used to take me a full class period to teach that. And some students would still be sitting there going, "Huh?". But today they just got it in, like, five minutes.

I realize that there is nothing earth-shattering about this method. The thing is, I've taught it this way before. Only I didn't lead with this part. I ended with this part. All I did today was change the order.

Oh, I love these moments of finding the tiniest little change that makes a huge difference.

That happened to me today with fractions as exponents.

I won't bother to mention how I used to teach it. It was bad. Very bad.

Today, I started by showing them this, and

Then I asked them HOW they knew it was x squared. Somebody pointed out that three x-squareds multiply to equal x^6. Someone else said that you divide 6 by 3.

I made a big deal about writing x^(6/3) before writing the answer as x squared. And we did several more of these including some square roots, so they could see that you divide by two.

Then I showed them this, and gave some time to think about it and write down what they thought the answer should be.

Almost every single student wrote down x^(2/3)! And there were angels singing.

Then we worked on going backwards, which was no biggie at all. Given x^(1/2), students could easily rewrite as square root of x and so on.

And then I didn't know what to do, because it used to take me a full class period to teach that. And some students would still be sitting there going, "Huh?". But today they just got it in, like, five minutes.

I realize that there is nothing earth-shattering about this method. The thing is, I've taught it this way before. Only I didn't lead with this part. I ended with this part. All I did today was change the order.

Oh, I love these moments of finding the tiniest little change that makes a huge difference.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)