# Inverse Functions #MTBoS30 Post 20

Standard

This week we wrapped up our school year with 2 final teacher work days.  One day our department had some time to reflect onmour year.  One of our big issue is the immense amount Kentucky requires in Algebra 2.  Its nearly impossible to ‘cover’ it all, much less allow struggling math students time to process and develop a slight understanding.

I, personally, don’t worry with getting it all in.  I attempt to make the students’ time worthwhile and hopefully they leave with some deeper understanding about concepts rather than a list of procedures only 30% may be able to recall at any given time.

Anyway, we attempted to pick out 10 Big Rocks for our focus next year..the non-negotiables in a sense and that is where we will begin.  Sure we will have the “extras” ready should we achieve at a faster pace than expected.  But the goal is to truly develop reasoning and conceptual understanding of our Big Rocks.

While looking over the outline, there were a couple of things I remember thinking we needed to ensure we focused on during our functions unit.  1) composition of functions, not just in equation form, but to make sure we look at them numerically in a table of values and graphically as well. 2) a different approach to finding inverse functions.

It was Sam’s post that made me wonder if this way would make more sense for our students.
Looking at “x” think about and list order of operations.  Then, in reverse, list inverse operations and apply to x to get the inverse function.

Inverse operations and inverse order.
Is this a strategy others use as well?  A couple of colleagues seemed to really like this.
Wondering what situations it may not work…or at least reasons I shouldn’t use this approach.  Is there anything that follows this would cause issues for my students?