An ignorant higher math instruction question

[swimmermom3]

:blush::blush::blush: I have one son who is doing Algebra I at home with Foerster. I have an older son doing Algebra 1 with Connections Academy using Prentice Hall Algebra 1. I have no problems working with Foerster, but to my liberal arts eye, the Prentice Hall book seems to have almost completely reversed the order in which topics are taught. So the inequalities that are taught in Chapter 13 in Foerster are taught in Chapter 3 in PH. I find myself forever trying to explain things to the oldest with language and terminology that he has not had. This isn't the first time I have noticed a wide range in the order of topics covered in Algebra I and II and in geometry.

 

I can't believe I am asking this question, but is higher math so arbitrary that you can teach it in any order? Or does it just look arbitrary to me? In teaching writing you usually progress from sentence to paragraph to essay. I look at some of the public school textbooks my kids have used and it sometimes seems as though they are starting with a ten-page research paper and working their way backwards the sentence. It is not logical or orderly. At least not to me.

 

My oldest son is working with functions. I finally had to place it in terms of a rule for him so he could proceed. His understanding is superficial at best. Today, he started with domain and range. While he was asking me questions, his younger brother stood behind him and checked out the situation. Finally, he leaned in and started talking both himself and his older brother through the tutorial. I haven't covered that topic yet with the youngest, but it's next and he could work his way through it because his foundation is stronger. I felt so sorry for my older son.

 

Do textbook publishers move things around to differentiate themselves from other texts or again, are there really 10 different ways to teach algebra?

[Jann in TX]

I like some progressions more than others.

 

I choose the math texts I teach out of based on the progression I like the best.

 

You can't just switch certain chapters around... or you will most likely end up with terminology that has not been introduced yet...

 

When a text author chooses a progression the problem sets in the text are organized in a way to match the progression... if that makes sense.

 

The progression of Lial is different in the 7th and 8th editions. I prefer the progression in the 7th--but the 8th is fine too... many of the chapters are word for word the same... but due to the different progression there are quite a few differences too. They both take the student to the same place.

 

I would NOT want there to be a standard of progression for all US math texts-- that would be limiting.... different progressions reach different learning types-- this is a freedom I feel is important!

[Julie in MN]

Do textbook publishers move things around to differentiate themselves from other texts or again, are there really 10 different ways to teach algebra?

 

Like Jann, in my mind there really are different progressions that are equally possible. Not with everything, but with many things.

 

For instance, you can learn the vocab first, and then how to use the vocab, or you can learn how to do the problems, and then learn what they're called later. Maybe your author is trying to introduce the thinking process before he defines the rule? Jacobs did that a lot in his geometry.

 

However... you should not be required to define things for your child to complete his work. The author has complete control over his practice problems, so he should not be including something he has not taught. I would think that either you missed it earlier in the text, or he taught it in an earlier level of his math sequence, or he is not properly editing his work -- which sometimes happens when an author switches something around and doesn't notice the fall-out.

 

Have you tried contacting the author or publisher? I have good luck with that.

 

Julie