Christyinco Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 My kids are both doing Glencoe math this year through a co-op and I'm struggling. There is so much info in each lesson so they cover tons of material, but there is no depth and no time to absorb. Do you believe in fewer problems, but more thinking and real world in a lesson? I'm close to pulling my daughter out and doing Teaching Textbooks Geometry. I'm sure it doesn't cover everything in Glencoe, but at this point I want her to "get" what whe is learning. What is your philosophy on math and having complete understanding, verses learning material and moving on? Maybe not the best way to phrase this question. I just want to pick something and stick with it. If we stay with Glencoe it would require a tutor. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 If you want thinking and real world application in a geometry text, TT is *not* what you are looking for. TT is a straighforward, non-honors text. Jacobs geometry has much more in terms of thinking and real world application--in fact, he seems to have it in every single problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 I think it very much depends on the child, the individual strengths, weaknesses, and goals (math-oriented career plans or no). And it can also vary from one year's topics to another. Thus some kids thrive on Saxon and its repetition, while others wilt; and this is so for just about every program. That said, in general the biggie commercial math textbook publishers in the US are known for going ten miles wide and one inch deep, for stressing coverage to an almost ridiculous degree. You have to look around to find something different. There's a high school math program by CoMap, called Modelling Our World, in which ALL the math units for the entire four years begin with and center on real world problems: everything from satellite imagery to animation to the statistics of the testing industry to genetics and probability. Algebra, geometry, and trigonometry are all intertwined, and part of the discussion and thinking-centered curriculum is what kinds of math might be needed to solve a particular problem. If you're looking to get a kid through AP calculus, it's probably not the program to do that. But if you want a kid who knows how to think through a problem, who understands not only how the math works but why this particular math is useful in this particular situation, it might be a good choice. They say on the website that kids score slightly higher with this program than with a standard textbook; but that the real difference is the number of kids who go through this program and want to pursue higher math in college. That last definitely has me interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 My kids are both doing Glencoe math this year through a co-op and I'm struggling. There is so much info in each lesson so they cover tons of material, but there is no depth and no time to absorb. Do you believe in fewer problems, but more thinking and real world in a lesson? I'm close to pulling my daughter out and doing Teaching Textbooks Geometry. I'm sure it doesn't cover everything in Glencoe, but at this point I want her to "get" what whe is learning. What is your philosophy on math and having complete understanding, verses learning material and moving on? I find it essential to move in math at such a rate that the material is completely mastered and understood before moving to the next topic. I prefer a curriculum that stays on topic and explores the area thoroughly, providing enough practice and insight. This does not mean fewer practice problems, it means staying on a subject until mastery. Usually with math the in-depth understanding comes through problem solving, so just thinking and talking about concepts at the expense of problem solving will not produce results. Going faster in order to cover more topics superficially is useless because with math there is no benefit in one-time exposure. (This is different from other subjects.) We are using The Art of Problem Solving which is wonderful for providing insight, but at the same time has a lot of problems for the student to work. We work on one chapter till all the problems are done and understood. We have no fixed time table when a certain chapter must be completed; I find it important that the kids can take whatever time it takes to really learn this. If this means that fewer chapters are covered in a semester, so be it. But racing through a book produces students who will not have mastered the material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jann in TX Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Just because the concepts are in the text does not mean they NEED to be covered. I'm using Holt 2007 Geometry with my online classes. If I taught every concept that is in the text it would take nearly 2 years to teach! There are so many great supplements (challenge and problem solving)--that it has been VERY DIFFICULT to narrow the homework down to a reasonable amount. If I tried to rush through it all my students would not have a prayer of absorbing any of it! The teacher needs to be experienced enough to pick and choose (and combine) concepts. The text is a TOOL--not a Bible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.