Date: Mon Oct 28 17:39:16 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Answer(or question to Mentor): 1.well i added 1 4th + 1 3rd and got 7 12ths and that is how much the storm surge was in 2002.
2.i added 1 4th + 3 4th and got the answer of one and that is how many feet were left dry.
Date: Thu Oct 31 14:27:07 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Thanks for submitting a response, Chris. You approached the problem in a unique way, but did not result with the correct answers. In your solution, can you tell me why you chose to add 1/4 and 1/3? Try and find a new way to solve the problem by comparing the part of the pole that is out of the ground in 2000 to the part of the pole that is out of the ground in 2002. I look forward to reading your response.
-Emily
Date: Sat Nov 2 10:40:27 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Instructor Comments: Emily,
I can see that you are struggling with how to compliment without saying too much since he got the answer incorrect. In reading your response, I don't think your grammar is quite right. Moreover, I don't think that saying "Try to find a new way is really helpful enough. I would try to give Chris some more specific feedback both on why he can't add the two fractions, and what new approach he should try.
How about something like this: "You approached the problem in a unique way, but the results was not correct. Let's see if we can figure out why. When you add fractions, you need to make sure they refer to the same whole. So, let's take a simple example: If you eat half of a big cookie and half of a smaller cookie, you have not eaten 1 whole cookie because those fractions refer to different "wholes"! So, the same principle applies here. The "whole" to which the 1/3 refers is the portion of the pole sticking out of the ground. But, the "whole" to which the 1/4 refers is the WHOLE pole.
Let's look at the diagram for 2000 first and focus on the part of the pole above the water. Note that the problem states that 1/3 of the part of the pole that sticks out was under water. So, if 1/3 of that part is covered by water, then what fraction is NOT covered by water? Now since the problem tells us that 5 feet of the pole were not covered in water, can you figure out how many feet WERE covered by water? Once you know the number of feet covered by water, you can figure out the total number of feet sticking out of the ground.
Once you know the height of the stilt, you can use this information to figure out the height of the swell in 2002.
Hope this helps! Good luck and write back if you need any other clues.
Emily-- can you see how this type of clue would be more specific? I hope that it helps him.
Dr. Bowers
Date: Sun Nov 3 13:09:49 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Hi Chris, thanks for submitting a response.
You approached the problem in a unique way, but your answers are not correct. Let's see if we can figure out why. When you add fractions, you need to make sure they refer to the same whole. So, let's take a simple example: If you eat half of a big cookie and half of a smaller cookie, you have not eaten 1 whole cookie because those fractions refer to different
Date: Sun Nov 3 13:10:42 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Hi Chris, thanks for submitting a response.
You approached the problem in a unique way, but your answers are not correct. Let's see if we can figure out why. When you add fractions, you need to make sure they refer to the same whole. So, let's take a simple example: If you eat half of a big cookie and half of a smaller cookie, you have not eaten 1 whole cookie because those fractions refer to different
Date: Sun Nov 3 13:19:12 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Dr. Bowers,
Thanks for taking the time to help me revise my response to Chris' solution. At first, I was under the impression that in our first response we were only supposed to give them a mild hint and ask them to explain why they chose the method they used. Now, I realize that we are moving through these problems rather quickly, and need to give more specific, helpful feedback.
NOTE: I am trying to send a reply to Chris but for some reason only part of the response is showing up after I send it. I have not had any other problems sending responses. Here is what I intended to send:
Hi Chris, thanks for submitting a response.
You approached the problem in a unique way, but your answers are not correct. Let's see if we can figure out why. When you add fractions, you need to make sure they refer to the same whole. So, let's take a simple example: If you eat half of a big cookie and half of a smaller cookie, you have not eaten 1 whole cookie because those fractions refer to different "wholes"! So, the same principle applies here. The "whole" to which the 1/3 refers is the portion of the pole sticking out of the ground. But, the "whole" to which the 1/4 refers is the WHOLE pole.
Let's look at the diagram for 2000 first and focus on the part of the pole above the ground. Note that the problem states that 1/3 of the part of the pole that sticks out, was under water. So, if 1/3 of that part is covered by water, then what fraction is NOT covered by water? Now since the problem tells us that 5 feet of the pole were not covered in water, can you figure out how many feet WERE covered by water? Once you know the number of feet covered by water, you can figure out the total number of feet sticking out of the ground.
Once you know the height of the stilt, you can use this information to figure out the height of the swell in 2002.
I hope this helps! Good luck and write back if you need any other clues. –Emily
Date: Mon Nov 4 12:49:38 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Hi Chris, thanks for submitting a response.
You approached the problem in a unique way, but your answers are not correct. Let's see if we can figure out why. When you add fractions, you need to make sure they refer to the same whole. So, let's take a simple example: If you eat half of a big cookie and half of a smaller cookie, you have not eaten 1 whole cookie because those fractions refer to different 'wholes'! So, the same principle applies here. The 'whole' to which the 1/3 refers is the portion of the pole sticking out of the ground. But, the 'whole' to which the 1/4 refers is the WHOLE pole.
Let's look at the diagram for 2000 first and focus on the part of the pole above the ground. Note that the problem states that 1/3 of the part of the pole that sticks out, was under water. So, if 1/3 of that part is covered by water, then what fraction is NOT covered by water? Now since the problem tells us that 5 feet of the pole were not covered in water, can you figure out how many feet WERE covered by water? Once you know the number of feet covered by water, you can figure out the total number of feet sticking out of the ground.
Once you know the height of the stilt, you can use this information to figure out the height of the swell in 2002.
I hope this helps! Good luck and write back if you need any other clues. –Emily
Date: Tue Nov 5 05:07:00 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Answer(or question to Mentor): well the answer is 10 ft. is sticking out of the water. And I got the answer by knowing 1/3 equals 5 ft and 2/3 was sticking out and 2/3 equaled 10 ft.- Chris
Date: Thu Nov 7 15:49:22 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Chris,
Thanks for responding. I’m glad that you put in the effort to try another way to solve this problem.In this solution, I can see that you are getting a better idea of what to do with the fractions in the problem. However, your answer is not correct.
In your solution, you have 5 ft equal to 1/3. But, in the problem, 1/3 of the stilt was covered with water in 2000, and 5 feet were left dry. The 5 feet is equal to 2/3 because 1-1/3= 2/3. This gives you a total height of 7.5 feet.
In your solution you answered the problem for the height of the stilt, but the question was asking for the height of the surge in 2002, and how many feet were left dry in 2002. In 2002 ¾ of the stilt is covered with water. So, ¾ of 7.5 (stilt height) = 5.625 feet covered with water in 2002. Thus, in 2002, the number of feet left dry is 7.5 (stilt height) - 5.625 (feet covered in water) = 1.875 feet.
This was a challenging problem and I really appreciate you stretching yourself to try and solve it. Good luck on the next problem of the week.
–Emily
Date: Fri Nov 15 11:42:44 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Answer(or question to Mentor): the answer is 330 calories.I got thus answer buy multiplying 9 times 14. And a fraction of it instead of a persentage is 330 over 2000.And the persent of fat of the burger is 126 over 2000 and I got this by multiplying 14g of fat times 9 calories of fat over 2000calories which is your recomended daily allowance.
Date: Tue Nov 19 15:16:16 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Chris,
Thanks for submitting a solution. In the first part of your solution, you found the correct answers. However, your answer to what fraction of the cheeseburger is fat is incorrect.
In answer to the first part, the cheeseburger has 330 calories and it is 330/2000 of her daily intake. I’m glad to see that your answers are correct, however, when you describe how you found these answers, your explanation is incorrect. Because your explanation is incorrect, it shows me that you do not fully understand how to find the correct answers. You said that you found 330 calories for the cheeseburger by multiplying 9 times 14. 9 cal times 14 grams gives you the number of calories from fat. To find the correct answer of 330 calories, you must find the sum of calories of all the nutritional categories.
For the last question, "What fraction of the cheeseburger is fat?", you knew to find the number of calories in the cheeseburger that is fat: 126 calories. I like your explanation of how you found 126 calories. However, the question is asking what fraction of the CHEESEBURGER is fat, not what fraction of the total daily allowance. You answered, 126/2000. The correct answer is the number of fat calories over the number of calories of the cheeseburger.
I would like you to write another response, that includes: an explanation of how to find 330 as the total calories in the cheeseburger and the correct fraction of the cheeseburger that is fat. Good luck, and I look forward to reading your new response.
- Emily
Date: Wed Nov 20 16:44:28 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Instructor Comments: Emily,
This is a very good and thorough explanation. However, I think I would say that his explanation was incomplete rather than incorrect. Also, I am not sure that you need to say that 'Because your explanation is incorrect, it shows me that you do not fully understand how to find the correct answers.' I think he does, he just didn't feel like writing it all out!
For #2, I think your answer is perfect, up to the last part. Why not just see if he can get it without this sentence: '. You answered, 126/2000. The correct answer is the number of fat calories over the number of calories of the cheeseburger.' Delete that and see if he can still see his mistake.
GREAT GREAT GREAT JOB on the closing. SO nice and easy for him to see what he needs to do. That is a pleasure to read. Also, you could ask him to do the challenge.--Dr. B
Date: Thu Nov 21 08:54:14 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Chris,
Thanks for submitting a solution. In the first part of your solution, you found the correct answers. However, your answer to what fraction of the cheeseburger is fat is incorrect.
In answer to the first part, the cheeseburger has 330 calories and it is 330/2000 of her daily intake. I’m glad to see that your answers are correct, however, when you describe how you found these answers, your explanation is incomplete. You said that you found 330 calories for the cheeseburger by multiplying 9 times 14. 9 cal times 14 grams gives you the number of calories from fat. To find the correct answer of 330 calories, you must find the sum of calories of all the nutritional categories.
For the last question,
Date: Thu Nov 21 08:55:03 PST 2002
Student's Name: Chris
Mentor Reply:
Chris,
Thanks for submitting a solution. In the first part of your solution, you found the correct answers. However, your answer to what fraction of the cheeseburger is fat is incorrect.
In answer to the first part, the cheeseburger has 330 calories and it is 330/2000 of her daily intake. I’m glad to see that your answers are correct, however, when you describe how you found these answers, your explanation is incomplete. You said that you found 330 calories for the cheeseburger by multiplying 9 times 14. 9 cal times 14 grams gives you the number of calories from fat. To find the correct answer of 330 calories, you must find the sum of calories of all the nutritional categories.
For the last question, 'What fraction of the cheeseburger is fat?', you knew to find the number of calories in the cheeseburger that is fat: 126 calories. I like your explanation of how you found 126 calories. However, the question is asking what fraction of the CHEESEBURGER is fat, not what fraction of the total daily allowance.
I would like you to write another response, that includes: an explanation of how to find 330 as the total calories in the cheeseburger and the correct fraction of the cheeseburger that is fat. I also encourage you to try the challenge; it's a fun problem. Good luck, and I look forward to reading your new response.
-Emily
