Reviewed OER Library

<< Return to resource list

Curriki Geometry


View Resource

Note that this resource was reviewed during the Spring 2014 review period. The resource may or may not have been updated since the review. Check with the content creator to see if there is a more recent version available.


This resource was reviewed by OSPI in Spring 2014. Learn more about the review process and the data analysis approach.

The version reviewed was last updated: 1/23/2014.

Background from OER Project Review Team
Curriki is a non-profit corporation providing a platform for the sharing and creation of free learning resources. This OER Geometry course was designed by teachers and project-based learning specialists. The curriculum has both teacher and student materials with a combination of printable PDF and word files and online activities. The core of the Curriki Geometry learning process is the project-based learning approach and it is designed for teachers to choose any or all of the projects to be taught in any order. This should factor into the viewer’s analysis of the review results.

IMET (Learn more)

Chart with scale from 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 3 (Strongly Agree). Consistent Content: 2, Rigor & Balance: 2, Practice Connections: 2, Standards for Math Content: 2, Quality Indicators: 2.

EQuIP (Learn more)

Revision needed (6.3)
Chart with scale of 'meets criteria' from 0 (None) to 3 (All). Alignment: 1.75, Key Area of Focus: 2.0, Instructional Supports: 1.25, Assessment: 1.25.
Selling Geometry

Achieve OER (Learn more)

Chart with scale from 0 (Weak) to 3 (Superior). Explanation: 1.5, Interactivity: 1.75, Exercises: 0.75, Deeper Learning: 2.0.
Selling Geometry

See standard error chart for the review scoring

Reviewer Comments (Learn more)

Moderate (2.3)

Comments/Ideal Use:

Overall, I like the scenarios that the publisher uses to generate authentic reasoning in the student. They are very well thought out and articulated. My main concern is that students must be held accountable for their learning every moment of every class. The veteran teacher could make this project run smoothly and very successfully with an honors class. I don't see this curriculum working well with a general population of high school geometry students.

A veteran teacher would be fine in implementing this curriculum. A novice teacher would see many of the classroom management issues that will occur as a result of the nature of project based learning in a classroom environment. As I reviewed this curriculum, I assumed that a teacher has the necessary technology to make this project run smoothly. It is not realistic to think a math teacher can spend weeks in a computer lab.


  • My main issue with the curriculum is the lack of procedural development by the student.
  • In my experience as an instructor, and through research I've read, students must see prior products in order to begin forming an idea about how their project will "look".
  • There is too much left to chance in this curriculum. The final project rubric is too vague in relation to GCO12.
  • No supplementary material for special needs learners


  • I would recommend including some traditional practice problem sets side by side with the pacing guide.
  • Develop an example project to help teachers and students visually see what the end product "could" look like.
  • I would suggest listing all or many of the constructions desired and make that list available to the instructor and incorporate them into the final rubric.
  • I would recommend a more clearly defined list of outcomes that students should demonstrate in their final product. General rubrics are adequate for higher-level students. Teachers must be very specific with lower level learners as to what they need to demonstrate.

Comments/Ideal Use:

I couldn't see myself using this curriculum as a replacement to my current textbook. Some of the CCSS content is missing, and much of what is there is not at the in-depth level required by CCSS. A single one of these projects, however, would provide a great change of pace, and a chance to see what math is required in real-world situations.

This resource would be most useful as a supplemental resource for a seasoned teacher. The group management skills require many tasks and some prior experience/knowledge. A novice would not have as much success in this as a veteran.


  • The curriculum does not cover all the areas of emphasis provided by CCSS for a geometry course. The curriculum fails in student-written proofs, and has only minimal coverage of coordinate geometry, for example.
  • The curriculum lacks author-written tests with answer keys and varying formats and forms. The curriculum relies on Kahn Academy's multiple-choice assessments, or Curriki ‘s multiple choice online test (or a written test with no answer key). Teachers are routinely asked to write their own quizzes.


  • Add the areas mentioned above to the product.

Comments/Ideal Use:

I would use this source as a supplement to a unit. I would use it after much of the teaching has been done as a summative assessment. Teachers would need quite a bit of experience with some of the formats used. I would not recommend to a new teacher. Teachers must have a good handle on their kids' levels of learning and type of learning.


  • Procedural/formative assessments not embedded
  • Assumes knowledge of Geometer's sketchpad, quizlet, sketch geometry
  • No support of ELL


  • Create and place procedural/formative assessments
  • Have an instructional aspect for resources like Geometer’s sketchpad, quizlet, etc. built in for teachers and students as this will affect the pacing guide
  • Need to somehow get the ELL kids involved. The problems are rich, but they might not have understanding what certain words are. There is a lot of reading, which will require quite a bit of scaffolding to reach this audience.

Comments/Ideal Use:

This could be used as a supplement to a geometry unit with guidance from the teacher about the important concepts to be included in the presentation project and these should be specifically tied to learning targets aligned with the CCSS. The 'curriculum' consists of six projects for geometry but in fact, the "How Random Is My Life?" project is not aligned to any of the CCSS geometry standards.


  • Lack of meaningful individual assessments Online activities that provide little opportunity for students to demonstrate deeper knowledge
  • Primary focus is on presentation development rather than deeper understanding of geometry concepts. Student instructions for project without indication of expectations of math concepts to be covered
  • Plethora of linked activities that need to be monitored for current accessibility


  • Include more rigorous assessments for individual student administration
  • Include learning targets for math to be learned and included in presentation

Creative Commons License
This work by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.