Next year, 9th grade: Mathy types, Geometry advice??

[Caitilin]

My dds have been using Saxon, successfully and happily, since the beginning. I feel strongly, though, that they ought to do a geometry course, learn to do proofs, do some non-algebraic math. Am I right? :D

 

So, oh mathematical Hivers, what ought I look at for them? I see all the different options thrown around by name, but I have no frame of reference for any of them. (My local friends with older kids, in general, are using TT. I don't wanna.:tongue_smilie:)

 

What have you used and liked? Why?

[regentrude]

We have used Art of Problem Solving Introduction to Geometry. We like the discovery based approach where a problem is posed at the beginning of the section and the student has to try to figure it out; only after that, the solution is discussed and the concepts introduced systematically.

It was a good fit for my DD who loves math. The book goes beyond the scope of a standard geometry course and covers more material and more tricky problems;

You can see TOC and excerpts here

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/viewitem.php?item=intro:geometry

[Sunshine State Sue]

:confused: I thought I heard that Saxon recently came out with a Geometry course. Are you not considering it? If it's not broken...

 

We used Discovering Geometry by Key Curriculum Press. It was straightforward, fairly hands-on, and light on proofs.

 

We attempted to use Jacob's Geometry first. Neither ds nor I understood it. Though I've seen many people on these boards use it without problem. FWIW, I have a degree in math (though Geometry was the only math class I hated) and ds is strong in math.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Sue in St Pete

[angel marie]

yep, sue is right. saxon did come out with a pure geometry book. john saxon did not write it though (deceased). so now it is an alegbra I book, geometry book, etc... u can still get the other versions though. go on the saxon site to see it. they do not have the dvd's yet, but looks like they are working on it. i am still using the old version. i really thought it over and wanted all the math work integrated as john saxon intended it to be.

[Teachin'Mine]

Saxon incorporates all the geometry you'll need for the standardized tests into it's algebra and advanced math texts. But if you want a more challenging formal proof heavy geometry course, you may want to do a separate course. This is what we used:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Grades-9-11-Mcdougal-Littell/dp/0395977274

 

If you read the reviews, you'll see that 24 gave it 5 stars and 15 gave it 1 star. That pretty much sums up formal geometry in general. Students, and parents, generally either love it or hate it. Personally, I was very happy when the course was done. :lol:

 

This text is good in that it separates problems from each lesson into A, B and C sections. A being easy, C being very challenging and B problems get progressively more difficult. Being accustomed to Saxon and doing every problem in each book, this was the approach we took. :tongue_smilie: It wasn't until we were a good way through the book that we started doing only some of the C problems for the sake of time. Towards the end of the book, I found out that it's usual to do the As and some of the Bs only. This would have been a huge time saver! But dd got a very rigorous honors geometry course doing it the way we did. I think it was good prep for future proof heavy courses in the future.

 

The downfall of the text is the "solutions manual" which is really not much more than an answer key. By the very nature of geometry proofs, there are several ways to prove any one of them. Only one solution is given. I could follow her reasoning when she chose a different route, but not being a math teacher, I couldn't be sure that a step was missed, or the reason was right, so I'd make her do all of those over again using their path. :tongue_smilie: Yeah, it was a challenging math year and I was so glad when it was over.

 

I notice that in one of the reviews this text was recommended for use in an honors class. I would agree. If you want more proofs than Saxon provides, but not as challenging as this, you may want to contact Jann in TX as she has a geometry class. I think this is one of the math classes in which an actual teacher is a huge benefit.

 

Good luck with whatever you decide to do. :D

[Teachin'Mine]

I just read through the Amazon reviews on the above text, and this one pretty much sums it up:

 

4.0 out of 5 stars Thorough, Systematic and Excellent (the review includes my rant about poor quality education), March 14, 2011

By

Gregory L. Egland (Santa Ana, CA United States) - See all my reviews

 

 

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Geometry, Grades 9-11: Mcdougal Littell Geometry (Hardcover)

I have been teaching geometry for over thirty years. I've used this book or an earlier incarnation of it for most of that time. Although the book has it's weaknesses, it is overall thorough and systematic. Negative reviews of this textbook are based primarily on a comparison of this book to watered-down texts now more popular with schools. I also tutor and one of my students explained to me that his school uses a different text, because that text concentrates on material covered on the SAT. I've had students who transfered to another school come back and tell me I made geometry unnecessarily complicated. His new school had an easier text. As another reviewer noted, the textbook committees of many schools are primarily concerned with protecting the reputation of the school by passing students and NOT with the education of the student. They perpetuate mediocrity. Better schools in my area use this textbook, but most often it's only used for "honors" classes.

 

This is a difficult text, not because it's a bad book, but because it presents a high quality, proof-based exposure to geometry. For years I've been hearing fellow educators taut how courses expose students to higher order thinking. The fact is, education in the United States, especially math education, does not expose students to higher order thinking, but substitutes mechanical processes for true understanding, and politically correct processes like projects and group work for rigor. Schools now use group tests and quizzes so students have a better chance of passing, not a better chance of learning. This begins back at the lowest levels of math education. Geometry is usually the first course of any sort where the student truly has to think. In algebra (not the way it should be taught, but the way it is taught), students memorize mechanical processes without understanding why the process works. If they remember the steps required for a particular type of problem, and get their arithmetic right, they get a correct answer. When a student creates a two-column proof in geometry, reasoning from limited information to a final conclusion, no teacher or text can teach a student to always get a right answer. Getting a right answer involves actual thought and may take time and repeated analysis.

 

Geometry is a language intensive branch of mathematics. If students don't acquire the vocabulary of the study (definitions, postulates and theorems), they can't "think" about the problem. It's like trying to lear a foreign language without learning vocabulary. This book does a very good job of laying out this "vocabulary", with a few exceptions.

 

The authors of the book have made the book weaker gradually over the last twenty years. I believe they have done so in an attempt to make the course easier. Unfortunately, they've merely muddied the water. Incongruities and inaccuracies have crept in over the years, but the text still remains the best available.

 

I suspect the publishers will be dropping this textbook from it's catalog. It hasn't been updated since 1999, although this is unclear. When I last checked with the publisher, they had not made any plans to update it. It is actually beneficial if they don't update it, I suppose, since when they have in more recent years, the book has become of less quality.

 

Finally, if you have a child taking geometry with this book, count your blessings. Help your child to be successful by having them memorize the vocabulary, postulates and theorems as a first step to understanding. Additionally, encourage them not to give up and keep thinking.

[Deniseibase]

I know several people who have used Jacobs' Geometry as a supplement to the standard Saxon sequence and been very happy with it.

[Caitilin]

Thank-you all for the advice and suggestions so far! I appreciate all of it. Now I have more questions, though.

 

1. Regentrude, will my daughters look at AoPS and think "aaack, we can't do this," because the format (of content, not layout) is so different? And, also, how well would I have to understand it myself? Honestly, they have been again, happily and successfully, teaching themselves with Saxon--would using AoPS change that dynamic for us?

 

2. Sue, I had not really considered using the Saxon geometry course because I have not yet heard one positive review of it, either here or IRL, to influence me in that direction. The fact that it is not a "true" Saxon book does somewhat incline me against it, fwiw. Have you heard good things about it?

 

3. TeachinMine, same question for you--do I have to actively teach the text you mention, or can it be done independently? I understand and enjoy geometry, (I am one of the lovers not the haters) but I would prefer not having to actively teach the lessons, instead being available for help and consultation. Is this possible?

 

4. Those who recommend Jacobs, why did you choose it over other options? What is better about it than other texts, IYO?

 

Any other recommendations? :D

 

Thanks!!

[Sunshine State Sue]

2. Sue, I had not really considered using the Saxon geometry course because I have not yet heard one positive review of it, either here or IRL, to influence me in that direction. The fact that it is not a "true" Saxon book does somewhat incline me against it, fwiw. Have you heard good things about it?

Honestly, I don't pay much attention to reviews of Saxon. I'm not a fan. But, I know that it is considered a solid high school math program. That's interesting that the Geometry program has received poor reviews.

[Caitilin]

Well, it is not so much that I am a fan of Saxon as that my dds really seem to like it. Whodathunkit. ;)

Every year, I say, so you want to stay with Saxon or try something new, and so far they have opted for Saxon every time. What did you use for geometry with your ds?

[Sunshine State Sue]

What did you use for geometry with your ds?

We used Discovering Geometry by Key Curriculum Press. It was straightforward, fairly hands-on, and light on proofs. Ds used it fairly independently, and I was available for help/consultation/testing/grading. There is a solutions manual and test book available for purchase. You can check it out here.

 

He did very well on the ACT, fwiw.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Sue in St Pete

[AK_Mom4]

2. Sue, I had not really considered using the Saxon geometry course because I have not yet heard one positive review of it, either here or IRL, to influence me in that direction. The fact that it is not a "true" Saxon book does somewhat incline me against it, fwiw. Have you heard good things about it?

 

 

I can give you one positive review for the Saxon geometry book. DS15 used it in 8th grade after using Saxon for prealg (1/2) and Algebra 1. He did very well with it. The explanations are clear and neither DS or I had trouble figuring out the problems. It may not have been written by Mr. Saxon, but it is very much in his style. The layout of the book was just a bit different (more pictures), but not enough to be a distraction (a problem for DS15).

 

I would have no problem using it again when DD10 gets there.

[Teachin'Mine]

Thank-you all for the advice and suggestions so far! I appreciate all of it. Now I have more questions, though.

 

3. TeachinMine, same question for you--do I have to actively teach the text you mention, or can it be done independently? I understand and enjoy geometry, (I am one of the lovers not the haters) but I would prefer not having to actively teach the lessons, instead being available for help and consultation. Is this possible?

 

 

 

This text is self explanatory. If your daughter learns from the Saxon text on her own, she should be able to do the same with this. What we found lacking was the solutions manual. With this book, the solutions manual doesn't list all the steps for a problem like Saxon does, so it's harder to know how to guide the student. For proofs, all the steps and reasons are given for one possible solution. If you like geometry and do well with it, you will probably do just fine with this text with you as a consultant.