Modeling Problems that Bring the Common Core to Life

Instructor: Maria Hernandez

Reflective Summary by Diana Tunnell
6/23/14 Day 2
Ball Bounce Continued and Wire Problem

Today we continued with the Ball Bounce activity. The goals of todays efforts were to find a function
that modeled the data. Maria asked us to sketch a graph of what we thought the data collection would show.
This helped to kick-start our minds into reflecting on what data the Go!Motion detector collected. Using a TI
data link, Maria shared with each student, a program file of Ball Bounce data that she had collected earlier.
The graph of the data is shown in the image above.
We discussed discrepancies found between our graphs and the actual. Mine varied in that it showed a
repeated distance along the bottom distance, while the actual graph has the repeated distance along the top.

Although a bit counterintuitive, the detector records from a position at the origin. So as the graph
rises on the vertical, that is when the ball is heading towards the floor. The floor position is marked at the
greatest Y value that repeats; for this experiment it was 0.99513 meters because the floor was approximately 1
meter below where we held the detector. That is why the vertical Y value for the distance repeats with each
loop, because the distance to the floor is constant. What changes with each loop is how high (or how close)
the ball bounces in its return towards the detector. Basically, the graph is inverted to what our eyes saw. This
analysis alone, in terms of correctly graphing motion on time-distance graphs is a very valuable exercise to do
with students.
The class was separated into small groups and each group was assigned one loop of the model for
which to find the function equation. The table below shows the data points for our loop. L3 represents the
time (x). The detector took a reading every 5/100 of a second. So our loop occurred between 4.2 seconds and
4.5 seconds which was near the end of the data collection and the domain of our functional model is
D: { 4.2 <x < 4.5}. L4 represents the height in meters. Since our loop was towards the end of data collection, it
was not bouncing back very high. The range is R: {0.83992 <y< 0.99513}

By inspection of our loop data we could see that we needed to model a parabola which takes the form
of y=x
2
.

Using a transformation to relocate the vertex from the origin, we would use the vertex form of the
equation y= A (x-h)2 + k where (h,k) is the point for the vertex. Using the list function we could estimate the
vertex by finding the lowest point in our data point table. (4.4, 0.83992).
Y = A (x-4.4)
2
+ 0.83992
Now we needed to play with the A value to create a curve (by widening or tightening the curve) that
would nicely overlay our part of the graph. This was done by trial and error. We found one that matched
nicely using Y = 3.7(x-4.4)
2
+ 0.83992

Each group shared their model, domain, and range on the board. Interestingly, the A values were the
same for each loop but the vertex shifted because each represented a different time period of data collection.
We extended the problem to include a residual analysis in which we compared the difference in coordinates
for each point. A perfect fit would have a difference of zero for each of the points. Our greatest discrepancy
was 7/1000 m off. Our function modeled the curve very well.
The activity today provided a great review of the capabilities of the TI calculators. The use of this
technology made the comparison of changing the components in our function easy to see. There were several
significant mathematical revelations made throughout the activity and it was fun. This is an activity I will
definitely use in my class.




The Wire Problem
Task: From a piece of wire of any length (my groups was 66.5 cm), we were to cut the wire once to form a
circle with one and a square with the other having a total area as small as possible for both.
Utilizing background knowledge: The group refreshed our minds on the formulas for the area of a
circle (A=3.14*r
2
) and square (A= S
2
). The total length of the wire would be used to form the perimeter of the
square (4s) and the circumference of the circle (2* 3.14*r). By choosing various side values and substituting
into the area formulas, my group initially thought that to maximize the square and form a circle from the
smallest length of wire possible would minimize our total area. We created a table based on various values of
the side length for the square. It was evident that our initial assumption was incorrect. Note that at perimeter
= 35.5 we are at a low value for the sum of the area, but then it increases again.
perimeter circumference side length Area Square radius Area Circle
Sum A (SQR) +
A (Circle)
50.5 16 12.63 159.40 2.55 20.37 179.77
45.5 21 11.375 129.39 3.34 35.11 164.50
40.5 26 10.125 102.52 4.14 53.82 156.34
35.5 31 8.875 78.77 4.94 76.51 155.28
30.5 36 7.625 58.14 5.73 103.18 161.33
25.5 41 6.375 40.64 6.53 133.84 174.48
20.5 46 5.125 26.27 7.32 168.47 194.74
10.5 56 2.625 6.89 8.92 249.68 256.57

We extrapolated by breaking the perimeter area into finer increments to get a closer approximation for the
minimum value of the total area. We determined that we would use the 37.5cm perimeter as the length to cut
the wire to form the square.

perimeter circumference side length Area Square radius
Area
Circle
Sum A
(SQR) + A
(Circle)
40.5 26 10.125 102.52 4.14 53.82 156.3373
39.5 27 9.875 97.52 4.30 58.04 155.5570
38.5 28 9.625 92.64 4.46 62.42 155.0610
38 28.5 9.5 90.25 4.54 64.67 154.9196
37.5 29 9.375 87.89 4.62 66.96 154.8492
37 29.5 9.25 85.56 4.70 69.29 154.8499
36.5 30 9.125 83.27 4.78 71.66 154.9217
35.5 31 8.875 78.77 4.94 76.51 155.2784
34.5 32 8.625 74.39 5.10 81.53 155.9193



The remainder of the wire was formed into a circle. It took a little encouragement from Maria to compare
the two areas to notice that the area of the square neatly circumscribes
the circle formed at this point. In fact 37.5/66.5 = 0.56 or 56% of the
length was used for the square.
We compared this value with other groups as they all had different
length wires. We found the 56% value held true with their calculations
as well.

It was interesting to see how other groups approached the problem. Some used the Extreme Value Theorem
and calculated functions to minimize the area. Our approach would certainly be well suited to a 8-10
th
grade
approach.