More Jacob's Geometry ??

[Tiramisu]

Okay, if Jacob's uses an inductive approach whereby the lesson is really taught through working through the problems sets, will I be able to help dd if I don't work through the all the problems myself?

 

How do I know if this kind of approach will work with dd? In other words, what type of learners do better or worse with this method?

 

Thanks for any help!

Edited July 13, 2009 by NJKelli
typo

[Jann in TX]

If you are 'up' on your Geometry you would not have to work every problem---just the ones 'around' the problem in question.

 

Most high school math can be difficult to complete independently--Algebra is a bit easier for the parent/tutor but Geometry can be tough because it has so many directions... different reasonings (inductive/deductive), other lessons in logic and proof --as well as application. MUCH more 'thinking' is required in Geometry--and this can be painful for a teen!

 

With Jacobs the sets are rarely completely fluid--meaning if she is having trouble with problem 18--you may have to go back to problem 16 to start that 'chunk' of the lesson (induction) but you will not have to go back to the beginning. The teacher's guide is also a nice resource to have because of the solutions (3rd edition).

 

I'll be using Jacobs 3e with my online classes this fall--it will be a change for me as I have been teaching Geometry from a more 'traditiona' perspective. So far in my planning I have really really liked the inductive approach--it is gentle as it guides the student...the traditional texts can be rather 'harsh' especially when it comes to proofs--throw out a bunch of 'rules' and POOF--expect the students to be able to use their 'LOGIC?' to get from point A to point D without any other helps. The inductive approach guides them gradually through the process of 'proof' and I think the students of most learning types will find this easier to handle.

 

I think Jacobs would be the wrong choice for a student who just wants to look at a brief example then work 20 problems just like it and be done.

[Tiramisu]

I think Jacobs would be the wrong choice for a student who just wants to look at a brief example then work 20 problems just like it and be done.

 

Scary. This describes my daughter pretty well. She likes to look at the examples and work from there without reading other explanations. She seemed to use Foerster's that way. She would pop in Math Without Borders only if she was stuck and her attitude was, "Okay, just tell me what I need to know."

 

I know this isn't the ideal, but it's a reality. And, I don't know if I could change it. Fortunately, so far it has worked. She's rather good at math despite having some attention issues.

 

What geometry program would work with this kind of kid to prepare them well for the SATs and higher math?

 

BTW, in the past Saxon was a disaster, MUS was perfectly lovely and stress-free, and Foerster's was a good match

Edited July 13, 2009 by NJKelli
added BTW in case this info would help

[Jann in TX]

Unfortunaltely she most likely has not developed the academic discipline needed to make Geometry a 'breeze'.

 

A more traditional Geometry program will have SOME sections where they tell her a formula and she 'practices' plugging it in...however, more than half of a Geometry course is on logic, process and reasoning... she is going to HATE it... (at least this is my prediction because you have described MY learning style---I did not 'get' Geometry until I taught it the first time!

 

I chose Jacobs because of the inductive approach. Most of my current students NEED the change of pace--when they progress past Algebra 2, Math becomes more like Geometry--and logic/reasoning/proof -type of skills are very important to have.

 

I can't think of any Geoemtry program that she will be able to 'work' using the same methods as any of her previous math courses. Geometry is its own kind of animal.

 

I had to approach Geometry as more of an 'applied science'--as long as I 'brainwashed' myself into NOT calling it a Math class I was fine.

 

Some students love Geometry--these are usually the type that need a big picture--not just a brief example...

 

If you decide to try Jacobs (and use the 3rd edition) you are welcome to e-mail me anytime she gets stuck.

[Tiramisu]

Unfortunaltely she most likely has not developed the academic discipline needed to make Geometry a 'breeze'.

 

A more traditional Geometry program will have SOME sections where they tell her a formula and she 'practices' plugging it in...however, more than half of a Geometry course is on logic, process and reasoning... she is going to HATE it... (at least this is my prediction because you have described MY learning style---I did not 'get' Geometry until I taught it the first time!

 

I chose Jacobs because of the inductive approach. Most of my current students NEED the change of pace--when they progress past Algebra 2, Math becomes more like Geometry--and logic/reasoning/proof -type of skills are very important to have.

 

I can't think of any Geoemtry program that she will be able to 'work' using the same methods as any of her previous math courses. Geometry is its own kind of animal.

 

I had to approach Geometry as more of an 'applied science'--as long as I 'brainwashed' myself into NOT calling it a Math class I was fine.

 

Some students love Geometry--these are usually the type that need a big picture--not just a brief example...

 

If you decide to try Jacobs (and use the 3rd edition) you are welcome to e-mail me anytime she gets stuck.

 

:D:D:D

 

Thank you for your honesty. One hope I have is that this was also my learning style, and I loved geometry. That was over twenty years ago, however, and I don't think the course was especially rigorous. DD is also a logical thinker so maybe that's another reason to think positively.

 

I'm starting to think Jacob's might be good for her if it forces her to progress through the steps.

 

Thanks, Jann!

 

One more note: my mother bought the Chalkdust SAT review for another grandchild to work through, and fell in love with Dana Mosley. She says she's never heard such precision and economy of language. I think if dd did CD, dd might do it with her.;)

[Susan C.]

Unfortunaltely she most likely has not developed the academic discipline needed to make Geometry a 'breeze'.

 

A more traditional Geometry program will have SOME sections where they tell her a formula and she 'practices' plugging it in...however, more than half of a Geometry course is on logic, process and reasoning... she is going to HATE it... (at least this is my prediction because you have described MY learning style---I did not 'get' Geometry until I taught it the first time!

 

I chose Jacobs because of the inductive approach. Most of my current students NEED the change of pace--when they progress past Algebra 2, Math becomes more like Geometry--and logic/reasoning/proof -type of skills are very important to have.

 

I can't think of any Geoemtry program that she will be able to 'work' using the same methods as any of her previous math courses. Geometry is its own kind of animal.

 

I had to approach Geometry as more of an 'applied science'--as long as I 'brainwashed' myself into NOT calling it a Math class I was fine.

 

Some students love Geometry--these are usually the type that need a big picture--not just a brief example...

 

If you decide to try Jacobs (and use the 3rd edition) you are welcome to e-mail me anytime she gets stuck.

 

Jann,

I only looked at the Jacobs text one time and got weak in the knees..... I didn't get it. But I am a plug and chug girl.... probably why I got even weaker when my distressed college son showed me his calculus book. I am just being introduced to WTM this summer, lack of any logic courses may be a key for us, I am planning on doing Traditional Logic with my 10th grade dd, and hoping the whole family will join in.

 

DD is doing geometry this year. (In the past, she has loved all geometry sections in her math). I have done BJU with her since the 3rd grade and it has gone well. We completed Algebra 1 this past year. I had a borrowed Chalkdust Alg. 1, it moved too fast for her so I stayed with BJU for Algebra 1. But, I don't like BJU's geometry text. (BJU Geometry does have the same teacher as Algebra 1, and she really liked her, so that is my default program). I own Chalkdust Traditional Geometry. I don't really remember loving it when my son did it, but low and behold, his best SAT math scores were in geometry...

 

What do you know about the above programs? I am open to change, my son did terrible in calculus....so much so that I think he will go in the liberal arts direction. I am wondering if the lack of logic and analysing in our homeschool is partly to blame, and if so, I need to correct this for dd. And, I need to decide what geometry she is doing since we start school soon!

 

Thanks!

[In The Great White North]

I recently found a copy of Birkhoff & Beatley's Basic Geometry, that has been mentioned here a few times. Would that be more or less inductive than Jacob's?

[Jann in TX]

The type of "Geometry" problems (shapes--area and such) seen in other levels (above and below a high school Geometry course) is limited, primarily, to application type problems. This is also the type of Geometry questions found on standardized tests (ACT, SAT...). "Plug and Chug" type of students do fine and seem to 'understand' this area of Geometry but most likely their application and use of formulas has NOTHING to do with actual 'understanding'.... Geometry as a WHOLE COURSE is much much deeper--it goes beyond the formula--and dips into the REASON WHY the formula works and the JUSTIFICATION of each step you used to get to your answer. 'Plug and chug' type of students also tend to 'see' the answers more easily--and are not concerned about the middle steps as long as they have reached the correct conclusion--in a Geometry course they are forced to list each and every tiny step and then justify them with a 'valid' reason. UGG...

 

Now SusanC.

I don't care for the BJU Geometry text--definately NOT for independent learners! I think a formal logic course may be helpful--but really and truely it depends on the MATURITY of the student--the MATURITY of their thinking and reasoning skills. For many students this area of the brain is not developed until their early 20's! A few will never fully mature... Success in college Calc depends on the type of student, the type of instructor, and the BACKGROUND/FOUNDATION of the student--some students score well in high school maths--but they may not have been challenged enough to learn how to THINK about math... again it really is a maturity issue!

 

 

NJKelli I also LOVE Dr Mosely--but be aware that the Chalkdust program is quite rigorous--and very formal. Most students will need contact with a 'live' person--someone to answer specific questions.

I will be using Dr Mosely's videos for my middle dd's Pre-Calc class this fall--but I will still keep up with her so I can help when needed.

[Susan C.]

 

Now SusanC.

I don't care for the BJU Geometry text--definately NOT for independent learners! I think a formal logic course may be helpful--but really and truely it depends on the MATURITY of the student--the MATURITY of their thinking and reasoning skills. For many students this area of the brain is not developed until their early 20's! A few will never fully mature... Success in college Calc depends on the type of student, the type of instructor, and the BACKGROUND/FOUNDATION of the student--some students score well in high school maths--but they may not have been challenged enough to learn how to THINK about math... again it really is a maturity issue!

 

 

NJKelli I also LOVE Dr Mosely--but be aware that the Chalkdust program is quite rigorous--and very formal. Most students will need contact with a 'live' person--someone to answer specific questions.

I will be using Dr Mosely's videos for my middle dd's Pre-Calc class this fall--but I will still keep up with her so I can help when needed.

 

You got that right about the maturity, what do you do when its not there yet.....what course? Not sure my almost 20 son is even there, and don't even ask about the rest of the house.... I'm just finding my brain in middle age, and that gets blunted with thyroid/hormone issues... My daughter is very methodical, loves to follow given steps, have a definite structure to work in, with even amounts of work. She definitely needs to be lead through things at this point, if you leave it to her, she will just drift.

 

My son had quite an email relationship with Dana Mosely! So, that program and all of Chalkdust is rigorous??? That is what I thought, my kids have trouble keeping up, and it does move quickly. BJU was too slow, CD too fast, where is inbetween? I usually flit back and forth between the two....go slow when needed, speed up when the other is too slow, but that is a lot of wear and tear on me to manage that, I have to preview the lessons. UGH

[Tiramisu]

Thank you for all your feedback, Jann.

 

I wish I knew how rigorous would be too rigorous for dd. I would hate to spend big bucks on CD to find out. I chose Foerster's because it was rigorous and she did well with it, but geometry seems like another animal.

[LoriM]

Given the "just show me what you want me to do and let me do a bunch of them" methodology you've described, I'd probably go with a very traditional Geometry text. MUS (plus honors) would be one that you've used in the past that might work.

 

Another good one would be the little yellow Cliff's Notes Geometry (under $10), and then move on into MUS PreCalculus. The Cliff's Notes plus MUS Trig (now called PreCalc) would be "enough" Geometry for the SAT/ACT. I'd still do a review book, of course.

 

HTH,

 

Lori

[MyThreeSons]

I use Discovering Geometry: An Investigative Approach (3rd Edition) with my co-op students. The second edition was subtitled An Inductive Approach; they are very similar. I used Jacobs 3rd Edition my first year at this co-op. While there was nothing wrong with Jacobs, I think that DG works better in our co-op. I typically have students ranging from the very young and advanced to the senior whose parents just couldn't teach him Geometry.

 

DG does what its title implies: it guides the student thru investigations to discover the principle for that lesson. It is more concrete and less abstract than many texts -- there are lots of constructions -- which I find works well with all types of learners. Another plus is that there are lots of great teachers resources available, which makes my job easier.

 

You can see samples here:

 

http://www.keypress.com/x5367.xml

[Kendall]

I haven't seen Jacobs, but I wouldn't classify Basic Geometry by Birkhoff as inductive, but then again maybe I don't know exactly what that looks like in a Geometry book. I thought Discovery Geometry was an inductive approach and I wouldn't have guessed that Jacobs would be anything like it is.

 

I used Basic Geometry with my 9th and 11th grader this year and I thought it was a very challenging book. We did a lot of the proofs out loud.

 

I second the comment that Geometry is just harder to teach. This year I'm doing the rest of Algebra I and starting Alg II with my 10th grader and finishing up PreCalc with my 12th grader. It is so much easier as a teacher to teach those, for the reasons others have mentioned.

[Sharon in MD]

Thank you for all your feedback, Jann.

 

I wish I knew how rigorous would be too rigorous for dd. I would hate to spend big bucks on CD to find out. I chose Foerster's because it was rigorous and she did well with it, but geometry seems like another animal.

 

I'm jumping in a bit late here, but thought this might help you in your decision process.

 

We used Jacobs for Al I and geometry, but I also looked through Foerster very thoroughly for AL I. I really believe that Foerster and Jacobs are very similar in teaching style for Algebra. I think the real issue here is as Jann said that geometry is a different kind of math. Once you get into the Jacobs text, past the first couple chapters, it will become easier, in my opinion. You have to give yourself, or your student, time to learn to think the way one must think to "do" geometry.

 

If you are planning to follow on with Al II by Foerster after geometry, you will find that the Al reviews at the end of each Jacobs geometry chapter are very helpful for keeping the Al skills fresh so you will not have any difficulty returning to the more advanced Algebra. Finally, Foerster's Al II and beyond includes proofs...so you will be much better of using a good solid text that teaches how to work through proofs in geometry as you WILL need it for higher maths.

 

We used Foerster up through precalculus and then switched to CD. If I were to do it again I might make that switch at precalculus. I really struggled to keep up with ds when we hit the halfway point in precalc. I just couldn't go fast enough to be of much help and I felt panicky about it. CD was a big relief for me.

 

hth

[Tiramisu]

Your post piqued my interest because I recently met a family where the daughter used Dolciani for Algebra 1 (and 2, I think), tried Keys to Geometry but stopped because it was too rudimentary for her. She never did any more Geometry except for an SAT practice book and scored in the high 700s on the SAT math section. Some of the other children in the family have used MUS geometry and I think their SAT scores are also very impressive.

 

I don't know if that would work with everyone though.:confused:

 

Given the "just show me what you want me to do and let me do a bunch of them" methodology you've described, I'd probably go with a very traditional Geometry text. MUS (plus honors) would be one that you've used in the past that might work.

 

Another good one would be the little yellow Cliff's Notes Geometry (under $10), and then move on into MUS PreCalculus. The Cliff's Notes plus MUS Trig (now called PreCalc) would be "enough" Geometry for the SAT/ACT. I'd still do a review book, of course.

 

HTH,

 

Lori

[Tiramisu]

I use Discovering Geometry: An Investigative Approach (3rd Edition) with my co-op students. The second edition was subtitled An Inductive Approach; they are very similar. I used Jacobs 3rd Edition my first year at this co-op. While there was nothing wrong with Jacobs, I think that DG works better in our co-op. I typically have students ranging from the very young and advanced to the senior whose parents just couldn't teach him Geometry.

 

DG does what its title implies: it guides the student thru investigations to discover the principle for that lesson. It is more concrete and less abstract than many texts -- there are lots of constructions -- which I find works well with all types of learners. Another plus is that there are lots of great teachers resources available, which makes my job easier.

 

You can see samples here:

 

http://www.keypress.com/x5367.xml

 

I have to say what really impresses me about Discovering Geometry is that it seems to use the Jacob's methodology without so much wordiness. The text has a clear, clean look. I think this could be better than Jacobs' for kids who have attention issues because it seems like it could help them focus. It's also not ridiculously expensive. Thank you for bringing this up.

[Tiramisu]

I do really like that Jacobs' Geometry includes algebra review. I'm really worried about dd forgetting everything we've done this year. And, I like what Jacobs' offers in terms of preparation for higher math.

 

 

I'm jumping in a bit late here, but thought this might help you in your decision process.

 

We used Jacobs for Al I and geometry, but I also looked through Foerster very thoroughly for AL I. I really believe that Foerster and Jacobs are very similar in teaching style for Algebra. I think the real issue here is as Jann said that geometry is a different kind of math. Once you get into the Jacobs text, past the first couple chapters, it will become easier, in my opinion. You have to give yourself, or your student, time to learn to think the way one must think to "do" geometry.

 

If you are planning to follow on with Al II by Foerster after geometry, you will find that the Al reviews at the end of each Jacobs geometry chapter are very helpful for keeping the Al skills fresh so you will not have any difficulty returning to the more advanced Algebra. Finally, Foerster's Al II and beyond includes proofs...so you will be much better of using a good solid text that teaches how to work through proofs in geometry as you WILL need it for higher maths.

 

We used Foerster up through precalculus and then switched to CD. If I were to do it again I might make that switch at precalculus. I really struggled to keep up with ds when we hit the halfway point in precalc. I just couldn't go fast enough to be of much help and I felt panicky about it. CD was a big relief for me.

 

hth

[Susan C.]

I just looked at Discovering Geometry, and there is no way I can do it with dd, I am too rusty at geometry and wouldn't want her to have to survive me trying to remember it and her not getting it with me...

 

I am going to start with Chalkdust Traditional Geometry. Where is that on the scale of being rigorous? If we drown, are there any suggestions here for a back up plan? I definitely would want something with dvd or tutorial help. I did look at Jacobs a long time ago, and remember not getting it.... A friend owns Teaching Textbooks Geometry that she would loan me, but we really don't like that spiral thing, we do much better doing one thing at a time with periodic reviews.

 

So far, someone has suggested MUS (I'm open but have never used MUS). What about Lial's Geometry?

 

Its good to know that Geometry is different from the other maths.... maybe its good to just get through it??