What type of student gets A grades in Jacobs Geometry?

[Julie in MN]

What type of student gets A grades in Jacobs Geometry?

 

I ask this because my ds is pretty good at math, but Jacobs is kinda unique for the usual good-at-math student. It's not just math problems with math answers. And I don't just mean the proofs. Jacobs forces kids to come along his way of thinking, and he teaches part of the lesson during the problem sets. At times, there is the domino theory, where misunderstanding the first part of a problem leads to everything being wrong (I've talked with Mr. Jacobs about this, and granted he does try to minimize it).

 

Therefore, it seems almost impossible for a student to get everything right. It seems impossible for an A math student to get all A grades.

 

If you have an A student in Jacobs, can you describe the child to me? What traits do I need to foster in my son??? I really think this journey can help my son in the loooong run; I really think he needs Jacobs. But I'm trying to tutor him through the short run. I find it best to correct alongside my son and discuss why he chose to answer as he did, and often he has a reasonable take on things. He usually improves a lot by the chapter test (which is the only thing I really count). But I'd like to see him get an A, or at least expect to get an A, or think it was possible to get an A :tongue_smilie:

 

Julie

[anissarobert]

My dd is good at languages and loves to read. She is ballet dancer and dances nearly every day. She loves musicals and loves to sing. Although she is quite artistic, she does have a fairly logical mind. She hates math and is trying to review all of Algebra because she apparently forgot it while she was doing Jacobs. She will never do advanced math past what is absolutely required to get a degree in dance or classics.

 

She complained about the proofs, but she got A's all the way through, which is normally very hard for her when it comes to math.

[Julie in MN]

Anissa,

How interesting. Your dd seems diametrically opposite to my ds, which is kinda what I was wondering. I am thinking he likes *math* but is not connecting to the more creative side or something. Some piece that I think maybe would be good for him to connect to.

 

More :bigear:

[FaithManor]

My dd had straight A's in Jacobs. I didn't tutor her so I am not exactly certain what would be the trait that made this happen for her. Except that she is creative and an excellent musician/advanced pianist. She's a good sight reader and part of being adept at sight reading music is the ability to "see" patterns and to intuitively anticipate what is coming next. So, I can see how this ability could make a person better at the proofs.

 

She was an excellent mathematician even in her younger years and we did a lot of applied science which usually required a higher set of math skills than what was being covered in the math curriculum at the time. So, we taught the math through the project. Possibly, that helped as well. One example comes to mind: in third grade she built a working boat lock system inside of a clear rubbermaid tub with marine tape and had to calculate the water levels plus draw building plans to scale, etc. We walked her through each step of the process and she got to the place that she began intuitively problem solving even when we weren't right there guiding her. Who knows? Maybe our approach to teaching science also improved an inate skill that made the geometry easier. I can't say for certain. The kid is a natural born academic and so it's possible that she would have found all of this easy if we hadn't done anything out of the ordinary.

 

I hope it gets better for your ds and you aren't too frustrated.

 

Faith

[MommyThrice]

My son hates math - took two years to get through Algebra I - and thinks Jacobs Geometry is FUN! He's my liberal arts debater/musician. He loved his logic course and, to me, Jacobs Geometry seems very similar to his formal logic.

 

To this day I still enjoy algebra and don't get geometry at all.

[KAR120C]

What type of student gets A grades in Jacobs Geometry?

My best Jacobs student ever was a serious classical guitarist... I wonder if the music bit really is significant! But then again Jacobs makes perfect sense to me and I'm a musical idiot.... ;)

[anissarobert]

My best Jacobs student ever was a serious classical guitarist... I wonder if the music bit really is significant! But then again Jacobs makes perfect sense to me and I'm a musical idiot.... ;)

 

That's interesting. My dd did classical guitar for 6 years. She had to quit when ballet took over her life.

[Julie in MN]

Interesting on the music and arts. My ds is teaching himself the guitar but isn't really a natural at music like his sister.

 

He has the math book downstairs but based on memory here are the kinds of things we run into. Basically, I have to use both the answer key and the textbook, and sometimes discussion, in order to even know if any of his answers might be correct. :sleep:

 

- He's doing a chapter with a lot of ratios, so in the first lesson ds answered every question with a ratio (using : ). This didn't match the answer key so I showed him how the book is using fractions so he should follow suit; he fixed those. Then maybe in the next lesson, the answer key showed ratios all in decimals (i.e. the fraction was divided and the resulting decimal was the answer). So, all along my ds never matched the answer key but I wasn't sure if he was wrong -- basically his typical error could be summed up as "not observing how Mr. Jacobs is solving the examples & copying him," rather than actual errors in understanding or computation.

 

- One problem asked what the "difference" was between the distance from the camera to two "mathematically similar" triangles, so he subtracted & wrote the resulting number (the difference). However, the answer key had a full sentence "describing the difference" which was something like how one was twice as big because of thus-and-so. *Many* times my ds tries to just "solve" and sees no reason to write out a sentence, and he doesn't read the questions as particularly *requiring* a sentence. And if I tell him it requires a sentence, he is stumped about what "we want."

 

- Many lessons start by asking "what do you notice" and it seems pretty obvious to me because the whole topic of the chapter leads into the related observation. But ds writes "I don't notice anything," which is a valid answer to the question. I told him he must "say something" even if it's wrong. So, he does, but he doesn't "notice" what the answer key shows he should notice :confused:

 

- After some of these various questions, there are often questions that start with "based on that, what is..." Jacobs very much teaches that way. So of course he didn't notice anything or noticed the wrong thing or wrote it the wrong way... because he started out observing something different This is where the domino effect comes in -- if the first answer is wrong, then the next several are automatically wrong, too.

 

 

By the way, pretty much every computation problem is done correctly. Except the ones where he needs to draw figures, which he really resists as pointless drawing when he could figure out the result without doing so.

 

So in essence, I understand Mr. Jacobs. *I* think like Mr. Jacobs. I want my ds to understand how he thinks because I believe it would help educate him in math and otherwise. But I realize I am not accomplishing my goal. That's why I'm wanting some conversation to explore what exactly is the missing piece in how to teach someone "to think like me" or "to think like Mr. Jacobs."

[Lori D.]

One generalization that I DO think might be contributing is: a lot of students who do well with Algebra just don't "get" Geometry as well (and vice-versa). The two maths require such different strengths and types of thinking. Algebra is abstract, equation-driven, very sequential. Geometry is very concrete and 3-D visualization.

 

And secondly, Jacobs comes at math from a different perspective than the more traditional/standard textbook programs. As does Singapore. As does Life of Fred. As does Kinetic Books. As does Math-U-See...

 

My point is that there are oodles of different math programs out there because there are oodles of different people who "click" with math differently. You may be too far along in the year for it to make sense to switch Geometry programs, but you might at least look at the table of contents of a few standard textbooks and see if it might work to have DS cover the remaining topics in Jacobs Geometry from a different perspective.

 

So sorry Jacobs has turned out to be a frustrating experience for you and for DS!

 

And nothing special here -- no arts or music skills or background -- but Jacobs Algebra and Geometry worked great here for our older DS who has always clicked with math. He is an auditory-sequential learner; straightforward; logical thinker; does fine with both the abstract algebra concepts as well as the proofs and the visual aspects of geometry. On the other hand, Jacobs Algebra didn't work so well with younger DS who has always struggled with math who is a visual-spatial learner and a bit artistic, but then, the only thing that has ever clicked math-wise for him has been MUS... I had him do just a little of Jacobs Geometry for more work in proofs as the MUS is quite weak in that. He did okay with the Jacobs Geometry, but it might have been because both he and older DS had both done formal logic a few years before...

 

BEST of luck, however you chose to finish the Geometry! Warmest regards, Lori D.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Lori D.
added info

[cbollin]

Hi Julie,

 

my oldest is doing fine in Jacob's. yes, getting A's. she did Singapore, then saxon 87, saxon alg. 1, now in jacobs' for geometry.

 

traits: wants mommy to stay out of it. can't clean her room. has K Love radio on all the time, does archery. loves to argue (so proofs are fun for her). but maybe I can ask her for her tips on teaching it or something and we'll get back to you on the specifics you mentioned???? maybe?

 

A mutual friend of ours (alida) told me that there were times she had to go back and re-read it a bit carefully and talk it out. You know her, she has never been quick easy A in math class kind of gal.... it was a work for it A.

 

-crystal

[8filltheheart]

I had a ds that was making As in Jacobs beg me to let him change books. He detested Jacobs style and wordiness. He thought Jacobs teaching style was the equivalent of torture. I switched him to a Larson text and he was much happier.

[Jann in TX]

While it is nice/good to be exposed to different teaching/learning styles they are NOT universal by any means! If your son squeaks out an A using Jacobs Geometry it will NOT mean he has mastered high school Geometry--it will mean that he has survived Jacobs unique teaching. Your son will NOT be exposed to the more rigorous parts of Geometry--they aren't in that text. He WILL have been exposed to a different logical sequence-- but people will ALWAYS have different logical sequences:

Ask 2 people in my town to give you driving directions to the city. There is a 100% chance that they will give you DIFFERENT directions. We have a maze of county roads and everyone has their favorites. Following either set of directions (or looking on a map and plotting your OWN course) will still get you to your destination. When we head off to a soccer game, our family goes one way and our neighbors another-- we usually get to the park AT THE SAME TIME... just in a different sequence.

 

You cannot take someone who has poor coordination and expect them to paint like one of the Masters! Sure, you can teach them how to paint-- but the results will be 'OK'-- nothing stellar--- not "A" quality.

 

I think it is almost TORTURE to knowingly place a 'standard' student into a 'unique' program and have high expectations-- especially at the high school level-- their OWN logic has not matured yet! Maybe in their 20's they will be able to go back and understand the 'unique' program--in our context-- as an ADULT they may be able to 'think like Jacobs'-- but in my experience the MAJORITY of high school students just aren't wired this way.

 

Jacobs 2nd edition texts reached a wider range of students and was a MUCH more rigorous text in content!

 

I had 15 students in my Jacobs 3e class last year. I really only had 2 who were 'A' students-- and only ONE of those was consistently an A student... they were students who EASILY thought outside of the box (like Jacobs) and approached this program as a challenge.

 

I can understand Jacobs' logic, but I am an adult who has taught Geometry professionally for years! Do I 'like' (read as prefer) his approach?-- No. In my experience not every student is capable of learning WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW from Geometry using his program (3e). Would I ever recommend this program? --Possibly. I LOVE the fact that we have a CHOICE in curriculum to use with our students... Math (and most subjects for that matter) is not a one-size-fits-all thing.

[Julie in MN]

Wow, the range of posts has been really encouraging and helpful to my mind, which likes to go in a dozen directions :)

 

Lori, your posts are always so comforting, thanks. It's right that not everything works the same for everyone, which is one of the blessings of homeschooling -- although it always leaves me worrying what my child would do in a group setting where things can't be tailored for him.

 

Crystal, I thought about the segue from Saxon to Jacobs (recommended by MFW), but I just can't see that any of my son's particular problems with Jacobs would be helped by using Saxon. He has no trouble with computation of even complex geometry; instead, he has trouble following the train of thought in Jacobs & I don't think Saxon is anywhere near that? Do you see a similarity that's not obvious to me?

 

Jan, my son would like the "torture" metaphor. I really like hearing about a whole class of students. I also especially like the focus on "what he needs to know" from geometry, rather than all my other things I'm trying to pair with that. What do you say about my question to Lori as far as a student needing to be able to learn from the book that is used in a group class?

 

 

 

So... after hardly sleeping over various school issues last night (including an awesome realization that it was 10 a.m. in Switzerland -- hi Joan!), we used Teaching Textbooks today instead. I had bought both programs last summer.

 

Interestingly, both books have very similar chapter titles. We were on Chapter 10 in Jacobs ("Similarity") and started back at the beginning of Chapter 10 in TT ("Similar Triangles" -- though other shapes are also included). Here is what my son said, although it's just a 15yo talking:

 

- The beginning of the TT chapter on terminology seemed like pre-algebra. (Maybe helpful as a review to focus his brain before digging in?)

 

- The terminology in the first lesson became more advanced/more clear than Jacobs, in his opinion, and made sense based on his previous experience with logic class (converse, inverse, contrapositive, etc., which he said wasn't the way Jacobs worded things).

 

- A couple of the problems seemed hard at first but after he found out one piece of information (like an octagon has all equal sides & angles), he said they were easy.

 

- On the proofs he felt he did better than he did on the Jacobs ones. (Mom says he had a better grasp of strategy but still needs work on writing out even "obvious" steps.)

 

- The full answers on video was awesome for understanding where he went wrong -- "How much did you pay for this, mom?!" (When I first bought TT, I felt this was a disadvantage since I didn't want to use videos to correct his work. However, today I used the "written" answer key and just told him to watch the videos for any he got wrong, so it was MUCH easier than what I've been doing with teaching through his Jacobs' errors!)

 

 

 

So to follow up, I still feel a bit agitated about it all, but am going to try a few chapters of TT geometry. The scope & sequence seems almost identical to Jacobs. The number of problems is less, but we weren't using all of the problems in Jacobs. I'll be watching whether I think the problems are comparable, though, especially on the tests. Both programs have some SAT prep but I may still use the Algebra review in Jacobs.

 

Julie

Edited February 24, 2011 by Julie in MN

[cbollin]

Crystal, I thought about the segue from Saxon to Jacobs (recommended by MFW), but I just can't see that any of my son's particular problems with Jacobs would be helped by using Saxon. He has no trouble with computation of even complex geometry; instead, he has trouble following the train of thought in Jacobs & I don't think Saxon is anywhere near that? Do you see a similarity that's not obvious to me?

 

 

I don't know. But I'm encouraged that you have a solution already with the other program. happy dancing for you!

 

-crystal

[FrogMom5]

Julie,

 

Would you please let us know what you think after comparing Jacobs to TT. I bought TT Geometry after hearing that it's not as rigorous as Jacobs but gets the job done just fine. My oldest loves Alg. I so, after reading these boards, I suspect he might not like Geometry.

 

Anyway, I will be interested to hear what you think of the two programs.

Thanks!

Denise

[Lori D.]

What do you say about my question to Lori as far as a student needing to be able to learn from the book that is used in a group class?

 

...we used Teaching Textbooks today instead... I still feel a bit agitated about it all, but am going to try a few chapters of TT geometry. The scope & sequence seems almost identical to Jacobs... Both programs have some SAT prep but I may still use the Algebra review in Jacobs.

 

 

Yea! Looks like you had a solution on the shelf! :) re: using a book because it's used in a group class -- I'd go with whatever program *works* -- i.e. the student learns the concepts, and if your worry is prep for the math that is on the ACT/SAT tests, he'll likely get a lot more specific tips through the college board helps and a either an SAT prep book or class, and possibly the Khan Academy free video tutorials online. BEST of luck! Warmly, Lori

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Wow, the range of posts has been really encouraging and helpful to my mind, which likes to go in a dozen directions :)

 

Lori, your posts are always so comforting, thanks. It's right that not everything works the same for everyone, which is one of the blessings of homeschooling -- although it always leaves me worrying what my child would do in a group setting where things can't be tailored for him.

 

Crystal, I thought about the segue from Saxon to Jacobs (recommended by MFW), but I just can't see that any of my son's particular problems with Jacobs would be helped by using Saxon. He has no trouble with computation of even complex geometry; instead, he has trouble following the train of thought in Jacobs & I don't think Saxon is anywhere near that? Do you see a similarity that's not obvious to me?

 

Jan, my son would like the "torture" metaphor. I really like hearing about a whole class of students. I also especially like the focus on "what he needs to know" from geometry, rather than all my other things I'm trying to pair with that. What do you say about my question to Lori as far as a student needing to be able to learn from the book that is used in a group class?

 

 

 

So... after hardly sleeping over various school issues last night (including an awesome realization that it was 10 a.m. in Switzerland -- hi Joan!), we used Teaching Textbooks today instead. I had bought both programs last summer.

 

Interestingly, both books have very similar chapter titles. We were on Chapter 10 in Jacobs ("Similarity") and started back at the beginning of Chapter 10 in TT ("Similar Triangles" -- though other shapes are also included). Here is what my son said, although it's just a 15yo talking:

 

- The beginning of the TT chapter on terminology seemed like pre-algebra. (Maybe helpful as a review to focus his brain before digging in?)

 

- The terminology in the first lesson became more advanced/more clear than Jacobs, in his opinion, and made sense based on his previous experience with logic class (converse, inverse, contrapositive, etc., which he said wasn't the way Jacobs worded things).

 

- A couple of the problems seemed hard at first but after he found out one piece of information (like an octagon has all equal sides & angles), he said they were easy.

 

- On the proofs he felt he did better than he did on the Jacobs ones. (Mom says he had a better grasp of strategy but still needs work on writing out even "obvious" steps.)

 

- The full answers on video was awesome for understanding where he went wrong -- "How much did you pay for this, mom?!" (When I first bought TT, I felt this was a disadvantage since I didn't want to use videos to correct his work. However, today I used the "written" answer key and just told him to watch the videos for any he got wrong, so it was MUCH easier than what I've been doing with teaching through his Jacobs' errors!)

 

 

 

So to follow up, I still feel a bit agitated about it all, but am going to try a few chapters of TT geometry. The scope & sequence seems almost identical to Jacobs. The number of problems is less, but we weren't using all of the problems in Jacobs. I'll be watching whether I think the problems are comparable, though, especially on the tests. Both programs have some SAT prep but I may still use the Algebra review in Jacobs.

 

Julie

 

Julie, thank you so much for this post. We are enjoying Chalkdust Algebra I this year and I'm researching Geometry programs for the fall.

 

I'm looking at MUS and TT and need to come to a decision at some point. Your post is very helpful.

 

Do you watch the videos along with your student? I watch Dr. Mosely's instruction and I have learned so much and it has helped me assist my student when needed. Frankly, we are learning together as I had a very weak math background (but Singapore has helped me so much!). I want to be able to watch TT or MUS and do the same. I'll admit, I love learning math (finally!) from these great instructors!

[Julie in MN]

Crystal & Lori, thanks so much for caring :) Somehow my family and friends don't seem that interested in my math curriculum dilemmas :eek:

 

Denise & NicksMama, I will try to form a comparison as we go along. I'm not watching the videos for geometry, but there is a textbook that's almost identical that I skim thru. I do love to watch his algebra videos as much as possible (Math Relief, which has DVDs so we don't need to squeeze around a computer screen), so I know what you mean NicksMama. I was just trying to explain to my son this week that he won't always have the opportunity to delve into thoroughly learning anything and having all his questions answered -- I told him he should value it more than he does :tongue_smilie:

 

Julie

[nuttman]

My son is also musical. He leanred to play the guitar by himself. he is also very creative. He has made A's on every test in Jacobs so far. He also made A's on every logic test. He likewise, does well in languages. He is not so great at Algebra or sciences.

[TravelingChris]

My son loved Jacob's Geometry and yes, he did get A's. It was his favorite class and got him stares at Sunday School and Scouts when he would mention that Geometry is his favorite class. He turned into a philosophy major and loved taking logic too.

[FrogMom5]

I've never asked this of anyone before. I trust your opinion a lot.

 

It's great that you "discovered" another program to use on your shelf. Hopefully this one will be the answer your dc needs.

 

Denise

[Julie in MN]

Christina & Nuttman, I'm finding this continuing arts/musical connection veeery innnnteresting. I'm always thinking about how we are all the same yet all different. How can some taste buds, which must be basically the same as mine, think dill pickles taste good :001_huh:

Edited February 26, 2011 by Julie in MN

[EKS]

Are you using the 2nd or 3rd edition of Jacobs Geometry? There is a huge difference. The 2nd edition is much more straightforward.

 

How are you grading the work? For geometry you should be giving partial credit, but in order to give partial credit you need to really understand what is going on, to the point of being able to grade proofs that are different from the one presented in the answer key.

 

I know this doesn't answer your question, but these were some of the issues I had to deal with myself when we did geometry.

[EKS]

 

So... after hardly sleeping over various school issues last night (including an awesome realization that it was 10 a.m. in Switzerland -- hi Joan!), we used Teaching Textbooks today instead. I had bought both programs last summer.

 

Interestingly, both books have very similar chapter titles. We were on Chapter 10 in Jacobs ("Similarity") and started back at the beginning of Chapter 10 in TT ("Similar Triangles" -- though other shapes are also included). Here is what my son said, although it's just a 15yo talking:

 

- The beginning of the TT chapter on terminology seemed like pre-algebra. (Maybe helpful as a review to focus his brain before digging in?)

 

- The terminology in the first lesson became more advanced/more clear than Jacobs, in his opinion, and made sense based on his previous experience with logic class (converse, inverse, contrapositive, etc., which he said wasn't the way Jacobs worded things).

 

- A couple of the problems seemed hard at first but after he found out one piece of information (like an octagon has all equal sides & angles), he said they were easy.

 

- On the proofs he felt he did better than he did on the Jacobs ones. (Mom says he had a better grasp of strategy but still needs work on writing out even "obvious" steps.)

 

- The full answers on video was awesome for understanding where he went wrong -- "How much did you pay for this, mom?!" (When I first bought TT, I felt this was a disadvantage since I didn't want to use videos to correct his work. However, today I used the "written" answer key and just told him to watch the videos for any he got wrong, so it was MUCH easier than what I've been doing with teaching through his Jacobs' errors!)

 

 

 

So to follow up, I still feel a bit agitated about it all, but am going to try a few chapters of TT geometry. The scope & sequence seems almost identical to Jacobs. The number of problems is less, but we weren't using all of the problems in Jacobs. I'll be watching whether I think the problems are comparable, though, especially on the tests. Both programs have some SAT prep but I may still use the Algebra review in Jacobs.

 

Julie

 

We went from Jacobs 3rd edition to Jacobs 2nd edition to TT Geometry. TT does cover everything that is covered in Jacobs, though the amount of algebra knowledge assumed is less. My son ended up with an A+ in geometry with TT.

[Julie in MN]

For geometry you should be giving partial credit, but in order to give partial credit you need to really understand what is going on, to the point of being able to grade proofs that are different from the one presented in the answer key.

Yeah, back in post 8 I tried to show how I was trying to work with my son:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2459495&postcount=8

 

We went from Jacobs 3rd edition to Jacobs 2nd edition to TT Geometry. TT does cover everything that is covered in Jacobs, though the amount of algebra knowledge assumed is less. My son ended up with an A+ in geometry with TT.

Well, here's to A+ for the student who *does* get geometry! I hope we'll end up there too. And I may continue with the Jacobs algebra reviews because I like them.