Jumping straight from Singapore 6B to Dolciani Book 1... can it be done?

[Old Dominion Heather]

Has anyone made this jump? Ds 11, who is very mathy, is finishing up Singapore 6 along with all the CWP and IP books that go along with it. Has anyone jumped straight into Dolciani Algebra, book 1? It is the 1976 edition, if that makes a difference. I have the book in hand and looking at the first few chapters, I think he would have no problem with the first 2-3 chapters, but I don't want him to get bogged down. He loves the challenge of the IP and CWP books and I don't want him to get discouraged.

 

My alternative would be to go into AoPS, but I am concerned that it will be too easy. He will be done the Singapore books by Feb.

 

My original plan was Russian Math 6, but I can't get a hard copy and I am not willing to pay that much for something I will have to print out myself.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Old Dominion Heather

[Gratia271]

I cannot speak to your question directly (Dolciani), but my daughter went directly from 6B to Foerster Algebra with no issues whatsoever.

[8filltheheart]

Has anyone made this jump? Ds 11, who is very mathy, is finishing up Singapore 6 along with all the CWP and IP books that go along with it. Has anyone jumped straight into Dolciani Algebra, book 1? It is the 1976 edition, if that makes a difference. I have the book in hand and looking at the first few chapters, I think he would have no problem with the first 2-3 chapters, but I don't want him to get bogged down. He loves the challenge of the IP and CWP books and I don't want him to get discouraged.

 

My alternative would be to go into AoPS, but I am concerned that it will be too easy. He will be done the Singapore books by Feb.

 

My original plan was Russian Math 6, but I can't get a hard copy and I am not willing to pay that much for something I will have to print out myself.

 

I'm curious as to why you think that AoPS would be easier than Dolciani?

[Matryoshka]

My alternative would be to go into AoPS, but I am concerned that it will be too easy.

 

Too easy??!! Are you talking about AoPS Algebra?

 

I had my mathy dd go from Singapore 6 to AoPS Number Theory over the summer. She got halfway through and loved it. But this year she's doing Discovering Mathematics 1 - From what I've heard, AoPS Algebra is very challenging, moreso than even Foerster's - or Dolciani. Maybe I've heard wrong. :tongue_smilie: I'm going to use either Forster's or AoPS Algebra next year with dd - I've got both on hand. I'll figure out which after she's finished up the other half of Number Theory over the summer.

[Capt_Uhura]

Is Number Theory supposed to go after AoPS beginning algebra? I guess I assumed it was after.

[Matryoshka]

Is Number Theory supposed to go after AoPS beginning algebra? I guess I assumed it was after.

 

I think AoPS does put it after, but if you look at the pre-test, it's the "easiest" one in the series. I had to teach my dd a couple of concepts to get through it (exponents, distributive property), but she did fine.

 

The pre-test for AoPS Algebra looks like it expects you've already taken some Algebra! After going through the rather intense chapters she just got through in DM, she'd probably be able to pass it with no problem, but I'm fine waiting for it till next year.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I don't necessarily think it would be harder than AoPS Algebra, but I want him to use Dolciani. If he needs an intermediate text, I might use AoPS, but it won't be for Algebra 1. I like the fact that the Dolciani text requires the student to use proofs for problems. For example, I think ds will be challenged by the Chapter 3 problems which require him to "prove the multiplication property of zero." Don't just use it. PROVE IT and you can't use a property to solve any later problem until you have provided a proof and provided the reason for each step.

 

I want him to get more into the "why" of math than the "what can we do with it" stuff, if that makes any sense.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Old Dominion Heather

[8filltheheart]

I don't necessarily think it would be harder than AoPS Algebra, but I want him to use Dolciani. If he needs an intermediate text, I might use AoPS, but it won't be for Algebra 1. I like the fact that the Dolciani text requires the student to use proofs for problems. For example, I think ds will be challenged by the Chapter 3 problems which require him to "prove the multiplication property of zero." Don't just use it. PROVE IT and you can't use a property to solve any later problem until you have provided a proof and provided the reason for each step.

 

I want him to get more into the "why" of math than the "what can we do with it" stuff, if that makes any sense.

 

AoPS makes students prove everything. ;) I have never seen texts more concerned about understanding the whys and hows than AoPS. Yes, they learn the "what can we do with it" but completely dependent on the "why" and "how."

 

I have never taught Dolciani nor AoPS alg 1. I have taught Foerster many times over and ds has completed several AoPS books. My understanding is that the Dolciani texts have more in common with Foerster's than not. I love Foersters, but my experience with AoPS makes me suspect that AoPS will delve far more deeply into the whys than Dolciani.

 

You might want to post over on the high school board and ask that question. I'm pretty sure that posters like Kathy in Richmond (who has a phD in math) have taught both and can give you specifics.

Edited January 10, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Matryoshka]

AoPS makes students prove everything. ;) I have never seen texts more concerned about understanding the whys and hows than AoPS. Yes, they learn the "what can we do with it" but completely dependent on the "why" and "how."

 

:iagree: Yes, we've only done half of Number Theory, but I think the "teaching" is done similarly in the other AoPS books. It doesn't tell the student anything. It asks them to prove this, then if this is true prove that, and if that is true then prove this other thing, and if all that is true than generalize what you've proven to find a formula that can be applied to all instances that are similar and prove that.

 

Then apply it in the problem sets.

[elegantlion]

I don't necessarily think it would be harder than AoPS Algebra, but I want him to use Dolciani. If he needs an intermediate text, I might use AoPS, but it won't be for Algebra 1. I like the fact that the Dolciani text requires the student to use proofs for problems. For example, I think ds will be challenged by the Chapter 3 problems which require him to "prove the multiplication property of zero." Don't just use it. PROVE IT and you can't use a property to solve any later problem until you have provided a proof and provided the reason for each step.

 

I want him to get more into the "why" of math than the "what can we do with it" stuff, if that makes any sense.

 

We are in chapter 3 of a 1960s Dolciani book right now. We've interjected it in on a break from LOF beginning algebra. I adore the proof section. We started algebra after using Singapore through 5a and then the first 3 LOF books. IIRC from what I've read is that negative numbers is one of the things Singapore doesn't cover. I don't have my Dolciani handy but I believe those are covered in one of the early chapters. We used an older Dolciani pre-algebra for part of last year and the coverage of negative numbers was very thorough. If it receives the same attention in the algebra book I'd say you should be fine moving straight to an algebra level.

[romeacademy]

I can't answer the Dolciani aspect, but my dd went directly from Singapore 6B to Jacobs Algebra with no trouble and I plan to do the same with ds 13 in a few months. I think Singapore's approach to problem-solving and the little bit of introduction to algebra included in 6A were good preparation.

 

I don't know how the Dolciani and the Jacobs compare. The first few chapters in Jacobs seemed like a lot of review on operations and such (sorry, I don't have the book handy right now, so might be off a little).

[mcconnellboys]

My son went from S6B into a Brown, Dolciani book. I think it's around a 1990 edition, rather than one of the older ones. I'm not sure how much different they might be. I am using RM6 at home with him, too, for drill work in fractions, decimals, etc. I think the book on CD is just $18, unless I'm mistaken.....

 

If you happen to have some chapter titles, I could compare those with you if you like....

[Old Dominion Heather]

Thanks, Regina!

 

The book starts pretty out with basics and ds has never had a problem with negative numbers, so I doubt that would be an issue.

 

This is from Algebra: Structure and Method; by Dolciani, Wooten Sorgenfrey, and Brown.

 

Chapters are:

 

1. Introduction to Algebra: The Language of Algebra/Solving Simple Equations and Problems

2. Addition and Subtraction: Adding Real Numbers/Transforming Equations

3. Multiplication and Division: Multiplying real numbers/Transforming Equations (including Axioms of Algebra)

4. Working with Polynomials (Let me know if you want the subheadings, it is becoming tedious to type them all out.)

5. Factoring

6. Working with Fractions

7. Inequalities

8. Functions and Relations

9. Systems of open sentences in two variables

10. Rational and Irrational numbers

11. Quadratic functions and equations

12. Geometry and Trigonometry.

[Old Dominion Heather]

That sounds great. He gets negative numbers pretty well and has been adding them in his head for a looong time. He might need refreshers on distributing a negative one in multiplication.

 

That makes me feel more confident, Paula! Thank you!

[Testimony]

IIRC from what I've read is that negative numbers is one of the things Singapore doesn't cover.

 

Just curious where did you read that? I am doing NEM 1 with my older son and it has a ton of negative numbers. In fact, it is throughout the book. So, I know that Singapore covers it.

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Old Dominion Heather]

I think she is referring to Singapore Primary Mathematics only. Negative #s are not covered until NEM.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

I own a Dolciani book, and I have my son in AoPS. I would put AoPS ahead of Dolciani. DS did Algebra 1 over the summer, he's now finishing Algebra 2. He LOVES it. Dolciani only got a so-so from him, but he can't get enough of AoPS.

 

He does the online class, and it goes fast. The teachers so far have been funny, and very good. DS loves the math jokes. As for proofs, he's doing tons of them, most of which I can't do anymore (and I studied math all the way into an unfinished Masters). If you want proof, AoPS's got them for sure.

 

The Dolciani book is now collecting dust, and so is Lial.

[mcconnellboys]

Mine has the same authors save for Wooten, who has been replaced by Cole. The set up of the chapters is the same, save for inequalities, which have been moved from chapter 7 in your edition to chapter 10 in mine. I can't say that the problems are all the same, of course, but it looks like the topics are still pretty similar and he didn't have any trouble with it last year.

 

If I had his syllabus from last year handy, I'd tell you what order she covered the things in, because she skipped around throughout the book with them.

 

The B,C level problems are often more Algebra II in nature. There are still plenty of level A problems!

[elegantlion]

I think she is referring to Singapore Primary Mathematics only. Negative #s are not covered until NEM.

 

Yes, that is what I was referring to. It was a topic of discussion here a long while ago when people were discussing whether to shift from the Singapore series after 6b to a more traditional math sequence or continue with NEM.

 

But thank your for pointing that out. I wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of what Singapore does offer.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Thanks! Sounds like we can forge ahead.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Thanks, friend!

 

I'll keep the AoPS in mind if he decides Dolciani is not for him. I don't think we would be able to swing the online class though. Our boys are similar enough to know that if yours likes the book, mine probably would as well.

[dragon_horse_0002]

We have Foerster, Dolciani (1965), and Intro of Algebra of AoPS. So far, we have used only 2 books: Foerster and Dolciani. We find Foester is more for drills and application math. Dolciani is about right. It does not have a lot of drills as Foerster, but it is concise and balance between drill (A type), word problems (B type) and some times get the kids get a touch of pure math (proofs) (type C). We have not spent time for AoPS yet. We hope some moms here can give us more insights to the book. From what we scan through, the presentation is not as concise, easy to read as Dolciani, but the problems are more interesting and more puzzled than Dolciani.

 

So now we mainly use Dolciani for learning the math concepts, for it is concise and clear (as written in pure math books). We use Foerster for extra drills. We plan to go back AoPS on-line class, after we cover most of the important math concepts in Dolciani.

 

We love to hear comments and suggestions.

 

Liem

[dragon_horse_0002]

Dolciani has a Pre-Algebra (60s-70s) and Structure and Method 8 that cover Pre-Algebra material. The Structure and Methods 8 covers more than the PreAlgrbra book.

 

Liem

[Dee in MI]

We've gone from Singapore 6B to 60's era Structure and Method 8 with my 7th grader. It has not been too much review, and there have been plenty of new concepts. He is definitely being challenged.

[8filltheheart]

We have Foerster, Dolciani (1965), and Intro of Algebra of AoPS. So far, we have used only 2 books: Foerster and Dolciani. We find Foester is more for drills and application math. Dolciani is about right. It does not have a lot of drills as Foerster, but it is concise and balance between drill (A type), word problems (B type) and some times get the kids get a touch of pure math (proofs) (type C). We have not spent time for AoPS yet. We hope some moms here can give us more insights to the book. From what we scan through, the presentation is not as concise, easy to read as Dolciani, but the problems are more interesting and more puzzled than Dolciani.

 

So now we mainly use Dolciani for learning the math concepts, for it is concise and clear (as written in pure math books). We use Foerster for extra drills. We plan to go back AoPS on-line class, after we cover most of the important math concepts in Dolciani.

 

We love to hear comments and suggestions.

 

Liem

 

:confused: I am very confused by that statement. Foerster literally has pages of word problems per chapter. There are a few very difficult word problems in each of those sections that the author recommends for advanced students, and yes, some of them are proofs. I haven't taught alg 1 in a few yrs, but one I can name w/o even looking is proving the quadratic formula.

 

To imply that Foerster is a drill type of math text is a gross mischaracterization.

[nmoira]

I think she is referring to Singapore Primary Mathematics only. Negative #s are not covered until NEM.

In the US Edition, but they are covered in the Primary Math Standards Edition.

[dragon_horse_0002]

Thank for your comments. You are right to say that telling Foerster is a drill type of math is a gross. We would like to clarify a little bit. Foerster is a very good book for Algebra. In fact we got it from recommendation of a trusted reviewer from Amazon, before we know and got the Dolciani one based on the reviews and recommendation of this forum. Between 2 books, we just like the way the Dolciani book is written and presented. It is concise but efficient as a good math book is written (for pure math). So we use it to learn the math concepts. The Foerster is also good . It also covers proofs and it has more problems for drills and word problems. But the way it presents the concepts is not quite concise as the way we like, So we use it for more extra exercises as drills. It is the same to Algebra of AoPS. It is vigorous and very challenging. However, the style of presenting the concepts IMHO, is not as concise to our like. It is just our preference.

 

Best regards,

 

Liem

 

 

 

:confused: I am very confused by that statement. Foerster literally has pages of word problems per chapter. There are a few very difficult word problems in each of those sections that the author recommends for advanced students, and yes, some of them are proofs. I haven't taught alg 1 in a few yrs, but one I can name w/o even looking is proving the quadratic formula.

 

To imply that Foerster is a drill type of math text is a gross mischaracterization.