Jacob's Geometry Prepare for ACT

[cindylee]

My daughter is using Jacob's geometry. I tutor geometry to some private school students that use Glencoe. It is much harder than the Jacob's. I haven't looked at an ACT test. Does Jacob's prepare you for the ACT test well enough. Thanks!

 

Cindy

[KAR120C]

And I've been a test prep tutor for several years now too... and I would say Jacobs definitely does cover everything you need for the ACT (and then some...)

 

I'm curious though - I've never used Glencoe for geometry, but I have a student using their Precalculus text right now and it doesn't really strike me as particularly challenging. What is it in the Glencoe geometry text that Jacobs is missing?

[cindylee]

And I've been a test prep tutor for several years now too... and I would say Jacobs definitely does cover everything you need for the ACT (and then some...)

 

I'm curious though - I've never used Glencoe for geometry, but I have a student using their Precalculus text right now and it doesn't really strike me as particularly challenging. What is it in the Glencoe geometry text that Jacobs is missing?

 

 

What I find is in some of the application...for example, in glencoe after they teach sin and cos they have word problems that you have to set up the angle of elevation or deflection and determine what you are looking for. In the Jacobs book they have the picture drawn for you after a word problem so you know exactly what the "x" is.....the horizontal or the hypotenuse, etc. and where the angle goes.

 

Another example is glencoe covers law of sin and cos and I don't see that in Jacob's. It seemed the glencoe chapter on bisectors, altitudes, medians, etc. had more complicated problems.

 

 

Now, I glanced at my nephew's(he's public schooled) glencoe precalculus and I thought the same thing as you. It seemed much more algebra and simple trig. What do you like for precalculus?

 

I'm glad to know Jacob's will be thorough enough because I will say my daughter understands the concepts much more than my tutor students who use glencoe.

[KAR120C]

What I find is in some of the application...for example, in glencoe after they teach sin and cos they have word problems that you have to set up the angle of elevation or deflection and determine what you are looking for. In the Jacobs book they have the picture drawn for you after a word problem so you know exactly what the "x" is.....the horizontal or the hypotenuse, etc. and where the angle goes.

 

Another example is glencoe covers law of sin and cos and I don't see that in Jacob's. It seemed the glencoe chapter on bisectors, altitudes, medians, etc. had more complicated problems.

Laws of Sines and Cosines is in Chapter 11 of Jacobs, albeit briefly.... I actually don't mind that the trig is "light" because it comes back around in Algebra 2 and in Precalculus... and actually I tend to chuck any early lessons on sines and cosines and do my own because I'm picky that way (LOL)

 

I do agree that the kids need experience with drawing their own diagrams from word problems, but it's an easy thing to add. We've gotten a lot of that through competition math, so I've not worried about it in the regular curriculum.

 

Now, I glanced at my nephew's(he's public schooled) glencoe precalculus and I thought the same thing as you. It seemed much more algebra and simple trig. What do you like for precalculus?

I have a Sullivan (& Sullivan) book that I think is rather good... I don't remember which edition it is but I expect they're all very much the same. Precalculus is kind of a tedious course no matter what, being more of a checklist than a real subject of its own, but Sullivan does a reasonable job of tying everything together. Definitely not self-teaching, but that's not a problem here.

 

I'm glad to know Jacob's will be thorough enough because I will say my daughter understands the concepts much more than my tutor students who use glencoe.

Standardized test math is actually very straightforward. Honestly the geometry on the ACT is very light. There's coordinate geometry with slopes and circles and distance formula stuff, and there's plane geometry with triangles and circles and parallel lines... but the trig is absolutely minimal (maybe 3 questions) and mostly just basic sin, cos, or tan in right triangles.

[Jann in TX]

Students using Jacobs 3e will need to prep more for the ACT/SAT tests than students who used the 2nd edition or another program.

 

Jacobs 3e students will have MINIMAL practice working out problems similar to ACT/SAT ones. Jacobs teaches 'Geometric Reasoning'-- and works great for students who think like Jacobs! The average student would benefit from working problems from a test-prep booklet and/or a different more 'standard' Geometry text.

 

I taught using Jacobs 3e last year and I supplemented the second semester quite a bit so my students would be prepared for the ACT/SAT tests.

[Joan in GE]

Yes, I'm curious about Jacobs Geometry too. Up until last year I had thought it was the "hardest" geometry book out there.

 

But then I read on some blog or something - that it was not a rigorous enough text if your student was going into scientific fields. I don't know if the same holds true for the 2nd edition (what we used) or not?

 

If not, what is the most rigorous geometry text that a student should use if they are pursuing a career in science?

 

Thanks,

Joan

[Julie in MN]

Well, when folks get intimidating with high standards, I always fell compelled to balance the *equation* :lol:

 

My oldest never had a formal geometry course at all, due to a long story regarding public school issues. Yet he scored very highly on his ACT, did well in engineering school, and is a working engineer.

 

My youngest is using Jacobs' Geometry and I can't imagine that it isn't enough when his brother had zero days in a geometry course. I think the logic of proofs is helpful for math thinking, and the geometry measurement lessons will review typical junior hi geometry and make it more complex (some of which was thinking taught in Singapore Primary), but really I think it's solid and "enough." Any missed details likely will be in triig/precalc, or can be looked up.

 

Ds is doing math consistently and being challenged, and that's what it's all about to me. "Not rigorous enough" really doesn't mesh with my experience. Maybe it's something that certain students need?

 

Julie

[Jann in TX]

Jacobs 3rd edition is a 'discovery method' text.

The 2nd text, while having Jacobs' distinct style, was more traditional in that it offered the students more ACTUAL PROBLEMS to work out. The 3rd edition text has more 'draw this and tell me what you think' type problems... this is GREAT for some learners-- but it is NOT a universal course-- and cannot be adapted for different learning styles-- it is 'hit or miss' in my book.

 

Don't get me wrong-- this text requires students to THINK so it as the 'rigor'--but other more traditional texts also have 'rigor' but with a clearer approach!

[Julie in MN]

Jacobs 3rd edition is a 'discovery method' text.

The 2nd text, while having Jacobs' distinct style, was more traditional in that it offered the students more ACTUAL PROBLEMS to work out. The 3rd edition text has more 'draw this and tell me what you think' type problems... this is GREAT for some learners-- but it is NOT a universal course-- and cannot be adapted for different learning styles-- it is 'hit or miss' in my book.

 

Don't get me wrong-- this text requires students to THINK so it as the 'rigor'--but other more traditional texts also have 'rigor' but with a clearer approach!

 

I definitely agree about Jacobs' unique style for teaching geometry. I think all the real-life examples help make geometry seem real & necessary. And as for the "follow my thinking" method, I've decided that one year of this method is actually good for my ds, who prefers black-n-white math problems. I might not want this method forever, but it seems like there's an application there to real life.

 

However, despite the amount of think-it-through problems, I still think there are tons of regular problems. If you did them all, there would be 50+ problems every day!

 

And I love his algebra reviews at the end of every chapter -- very helpful for keeping it fresh.

 

Julie

[KAR120C]

Jacobs 3rd edition is a 'discovery method' text.

The 2nd text, while having Jacobs' distinct style, was more traditional in that it offered the students more ACTUAL PROBLEMS to work out. The 3rd edition text has more 'draw this and tell me what you think' type problems... this is GREAT for some learners-- but it is NOT a universal course-- and cannot be adapted for different learning styles-- it is 'hit or miss' in my book.

 

Don't get me wrong-- this text requires students to THINK so it as the 'rigor'--but other more traditional texts also have 'rigor' but with a clearer approach!

I don't know that I'd characterize it as "tell me what you think..." When there's an open-ended question he still has a specific direction in mind and an answer - it's not like "write a poem about a triangle" or something.

 

I've been trying to reconcile our two very different experiences... and I think it might come down to Jacobs being best suited to one-on-one tutoring rather than a whole class. If I'm teaching one student (and most often I am), and we get to a vague, open-ended, "think about it" question, I can draw the student out a bit, make him work at it, ask the right questions to get him pointed in the right direction. I had a student a couple years ago who hated those questions - he would read them once and insist he had no idea what Jacobs wanted - but if he sat down and thought about it, narrowed down the possibilities, sketched out a diagram or two... there really was only one good answer. And going through that work was exactly what he needed to really solidify those concepts. I wouldn't say that he thought like Jacobs (at all!) but that he needed to work on being more flexible in his thinking, and that those kinds of problems really helped him in that direction.

 

On the test prep end, it might come down to class vs. individual tutoring also... I'm not so sure about that. I've never taught a kid who mastered Jacobs but floundered on the test questions, but then that might be something in my teaching style and not in the materials. I don't do practice questions much at all.

 

Generally for the ACT we do three practice tests (the three from the Real ACT book) - one untimed diagnostic at the beginning, after which we work on the concepts they don't already know, one as a timed section re-check after I've taught the concepts with other materials, to see if there are any issues they could still work on, and then one full Saturday-morning-at-8am timed run through the whole thing after which we discuss some strategy. In between we don't even look at "test prep" stuff - I tend to get my questions either from the book they're already working in or from Singapore (just because I have an almost complete set, so I can find any topic I want).

 

I treat the SAT differently - it's a trickier test, and the questions are harder than the concepts. But for the ACT in my experience can be prepared for with almost any materials that cover the topics tested... And a student that understands the topics well will do fine on the ACT with minimal test-specific preparation.

[2cents]

Well, when folks get intimidating with high standards, I always fell compelled to balance the *equation* :lol:

 

My oldest never had a formal geometry course at all, due to a long story regarding public school issues. Yet he scored very highly on his ACT, did well in engineering school, and is a working engineer.

 

My youngest is using Jacobs' Geometry and I can't imagine that it isn't enough when his brother had zero days in a geometry course. I think the logic of proofs is helpful for math thinking, and the geometry measurement lessons will review typical junior hi geometry and make it more complex (some of which was thinking taught in Singapore Primary), but really I think it's solid and "enough." Any missed details likely will be in triig/precalc, or can be looked up.

 

Ds is doing math consistently and being challenged, and that's what it's all about to me. "Not rigorous enough" really doesn't mesh with my experience. Maybe it's something that certain students need?

 

Julie

 

Thank you Julie! I had decided on Jacobs for Geo next year and was starting to 2nd guess. You set my mind at ease. :)

[newbie]

I just pulled my dd out of a Jacobs Geo course, b/c the terminology was not meshing w/the ACt, I think it would totally confuse her. I know there are not many Geo. problems, but to have a basic understanding and not word problem everything to death is much simpler.

 

After having many Jacobs issues in first sem, she had one class w/a Holt book and an awesome teacher and she actually smiled afterwards and it made sense.

 

Personally, I dont get Jacobs at all.