Pre-Algebra/Algebra- Dolciani or Saxon. Does it really matter?

[yvonne]

Just popping over from the K-8 board.....

 

Is there any significant reason to choose Dolciani over Saxon for pre-algebra/ algebra? Or vice versa?

 

Has anyone done one with one student and the other with another student? Did you see any advantages to one over the other?

 

I'll have to outsource geometry and up, but I'm not sure where yet, if that makes a difference in choosing one over the other.

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

[Nan in Mass]

Many people successfully use both, BUT the programs are very different. I am not a mathematician or math teacher (except to my own children), but as far as I could see, the emphasis with Saxon is constant review, very short lessons, and memorizing algorithms. The emphasis with Dociani is laying a foundation for proper mathematical thinking and problem solving.

 

Saxon isn't really broken up into chapters which each deal with one topic, the Dolciani is. A lesson in Saxon consists of a short bit of text and example problem teaching a new math technique or step, and then 30 problems. The first 4 or so practise the new step. The rest are "review". Some of the review is real review, doing something one already knows well. Some of the review is more complicated versions of one of the past lessons, in other words, problems from the rest of a normal textbook's problem set. A more typical math textbook problem set contains a few problems that work exactly like the example problems, a few designed to point out anything tricky about the concept covered in the chapter, some that require you to use the concept in all the ordinary ways, and some that require you to be creative and problem solve and combine it with other things and use it in more unusual way. These are all spread out in Saxon throughout many lessons. This means that concepts are broken up into little pieces, and if the student has the sort of brain wiring that makes it difficult to put together the little pieces into the whole concept, the sort that lets them be content to focus on doing the current task and does not refuse to do a small task without understanding how that task fits into everything else they know, then there is a good chance that the student will appear to be doing just fine in math, answering most of the Saxon problem set correctly, but be totally incapable of applying the math in any other situation, like science or a building project. (One of mine was this way. Saxon was a disaster for him.)

 

Saxon emphasizes algorithms. A Saxon student is good at plugging through an algorithm to get the correct answer. Saxon, at least in my very limited experience, was good at teaching how to do simple word problems, ones that followed the pattern of the examples, but not good at teaching how to solve real-life problems, ones that were not already written out for you using the same language cues as Saxon, or ones that required you to be more creative or ones that were more complex.

 

Saxon is good at not letting you forget anything, and it is designed to be simple for a student to use on their own. *I*, however, have children that are capable of being ...creative? ...inexperienced? with directions and misinterpreting anything. They see all other possible ways to interpret an explanation or set of directions and are likely to choose one that the author did not mean. That means that unless I watch them carefully, they quickly become a mass of tangled misconceptions about how something actually works. Either that, or unless the directions are very, very good.

 

In Dolciani, the emphasis is on correct mathematical thinking - in other words, the directions are very, very good and far less open to misinterpretation because Dolciani uses the very precise mathematical language. For my children, this saved oodles of time. Dolciani is good at teaching problem solving. The text is broken up into chapters which deal with one topic. A lesson has some text (more than Saxon), vocab in red (which must be memorized or you won't understand future lessons - there is a glossary in the back), examples, usually some oral problems to do, and then several problem sets dealing with different aspects of the lesson. At the end of the chapter are more word probems and a review lesson and problem set and usually some sort of extension of the chapter (a biography or more things one can do with the concept).

 

Singapore math's emphasis is on problem solving and application. Singapore's textbooks are laid out very much the way Dolciani's are, but there is more emphasis on applying the material to engineering and science problems and less emphasis on applying the material to math problems. It seemed to me that Singapore textbooks are aimed at future engineers whereas Dolciani textbooks are aimed at future mathematicians. Both would probably work for either, but if you are a mathematician, you are probably going to like Dolciani better than Singapore.

 

Does that help?

Nan

[Brenda in MA]

Many people successfully use both, BUT the programs are very different. I am not a mathematician or math teacher (except to my own children), but as far as I could see, the emphasis with Saxon is constant review, very short lessons, and memorizing algorithms. The emphasis with Dociani is laying a foundation for proper mathematical thinking and problem solving.

 

Yvonne,

 

I agree completely with what Nan has said. Her descriptions of the two programs were spot on.

 

I have had two high school math students. One used Saxon for most of the way, the other Dolciani. I chose Saxon for my older student originally because it seemed to be a popular program with homeschoolers, and it had a lot of practice, which he needed.

 

The result was a student who was able to get As on the Saxon tests up though the first part of Advanced Math, but then really hit a wall when he began taking Physics and needed to apply the math. He just couldn't. I gave him an ALEKs assessment, and he tested into early Algebra 2. He spend the summer with that and then he switched to Chalkdust and repeated preCalc. He was able to get through PreCalc and go onto higher maths in college and do well, but he still feels his basic math skills are a bit weak.

 

My younger guy used Singapore PM and then I had him do Saxon 87 for prealgebra. It was a complete disaster. The methods are so different, and I don't think he learned a thing that year. We switched to Dolciani for Algebra 1 and haven't looked back. He's using their PreCalc book now, and I can see that he has a great foundation. He's able to apply what he's learned to physics concepts as well.

 

I know that Saxon works well for some kids, but it was definitely not a good choice for our family.

 

Best wishes for making a good choice for your dc!

Brenda

[Colleen in SEVA]

Saxon... Dolciani... Singapore...

 

It seemed to me that Singapore textbooks are aimed at future engineers whereas Dolciani textbooks are aimed at future mathematicians...

 

Does that help?

Nan

 

I helps me! :D My oldest is using Saxon this year as a "gap filler" to increase his speed, confidence, and automaticity, but I do not want to use it beyond that. I am trying to decide what to use for Algebra, and your explanation makes sense to me.

[Jaybee]

My boys are quite a ways from Algebra yet, but we live overseas, so my opportunities for reviewing curriculum firsthand before buying are very limited. Hence, my questions now about Dolciani:

 

I've seen it mentioned quite a bit here, and was interested in someone else's explanation of how it works. It piqued my interest, but I am curious as to which edition. I know the older ones are supposed to be really solid, but is it hard to get the solution/teacher's manuals in the correct editions? I looked at Amazon briefly, but was a bit concerned I would order the incorrect TM to go with the student book. How do you avoid that mistake? Is anything else needed other than the TM and the book?

[Nan in Mass]

I used an older edition, without the TM. The answers to the odd questions are in the back of the book and the explanations in the chapters are so clear that I did not need the solutions guide. There are people here who have managed to get two that matched up and have posted isbn numbers.

[Teachin'Mine]

My dd wishes the Saxon lessons were short! :lol: In our experience, they increase in length and complexity as the math advances. Dd has been easily able to apply the math learned to physics and chemistry, but I do know that others have shared that their students weren't able to do that.

 

I think students can do well with either text - pick the one that works for your student. :)

[G5052]

My dd wishes the Saxon lessons were short! :lol: In our experience' date=' they increase in length and complexity as the math advances. Dd has been easily able to apply the math learned to physics and chemistry, but I do know that others have shared that their students weren't able to do that.

 

I think students can do well with either text - pick the one that works for your student. :)[/quote']

 

I was nervous about Saxon, but it clicks like nothing else for my oldest. There's been no problem applying it, and I'm not going to change what is working well. I don't see any gaps at this point, although time will tell. I do think that you have to be involved with Saxon in order to get good long-term results. I have mine show me the problems he misses, and explain what he need to do to fix them. So there is an ongoing dialog even though it is mostly independent.

 

Those I know who have had Saxon disasters basically gave the whole program to the student and walked away.

[Nan in Mass]

Saxon was a disaster with mine despite my using the same procedure with Saxon as I used with Singapore and Dolciani. We tend to be the outliers, though. Mine, even with me, had trouble putting the little pieces together. As I said before, though, there are plenty of people for whom Saxon seems to work very well. We just weren't a Saxon family.

: )

Nan

[Brenda in MA]

Those I know who have had Saxon disasters basically gave the whole program to the student and walked away.

 

This wasn't us at all. I always went over the lessons with my son. I attribute the failure of the Saxon program to the fact that my son is very quick at memorizing algorithms and picking up patterns. The way Saxon is set up, it was easier/quicker to just memorize the methods (and the ample practice helped this along) than to try and think through each problem.

 

As others have said, Saxon seems to work well for some dc but not for others. I really think it has more to do with the learning style of the user than how much input the student had from his/her parents.

 

JM2Cents,

Brenda

[yvonne]

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts on my dilemma!

 

And thank you, Nan, for taking the time to give such a clear overview of the differences between the two, and, Brenda, for your experience using both!!

 

It sounds like Dolciani would be the better path for my boys. Singapore is working well for them (along with Horizons.) They aren't naturally "mathy," but Singapore has really developed their stamina in solving problems that they have to think about and it's given them a certain mental agility with math. It's been interesting seeing the difference between Horizons' approach and Singapore's. AoPS would be too much of a stretch, but Horizons' pre-algebra, and it sounds like Saxon is similar, would be like losing ground.

 

Dolciani it is.

 

My next question would be whether there are any online classes using Dolciani algebra in case the water proves too deep for me, but that's another thread...

 

Thank you so much!

yvonne

[Teachin'Mine]

I was curious about any comparisons between the two available online, so I googled. This is interesting:

 

http://saxonpublishers.hmhco.com/HA/correlations/pdf/s/SaxonMathEfficacyMatrix.pdf

 

No idea about the tests and I'm sure there are other studies which show the exact opposite results. Interesting none the less.

[Gwen in VA]

I was curious about any comparisons between the two available online, so I googled. This is interesting:

 

http://saxonpublishers.hmhco.com/HA/...cacyMatrix.pdf

 

I wonder what a "quasi-experimental study" is? Almost all of the studies cited are "quasi-experimental."

 

Also, this page is from the Saxon Publishers' website, so obviously the publishers of Saxon would not include studies that show Saxon in a negative light.

[Teachin'Mine]

I wonder what a "quasi-experimental study" is? Almost all of the studies cited are "quasi-experimental."

 

Also, this page is from the Saxon Publishers' website, so obviously the publishers of Saxon would not include studies that show Saxon in a negative light.

 

I wondered the same thing. I was sure it was a pro-Saxon site but I didn't realize it was from Saxon's site. (ETA: duh - it's right in the link lol)

Edited January 17, 2012 by Teachin'Mine

[kiana]

I wonder what a "quasi-experimental study" is? Almost all of the studies cited are "quasi-experimental."

 

Also, this page is from the Saxon Publishers' website, so obviously the publishers of Saxon would not include studies that show Saxon in a negative light.

 

I believe the quasi-experimental is because they didn't randomly assign students to groups. Could be wrong.

[kiana]

oops :)

[Teachin'Mine]

I believe the quasi-experimental is because they didn't randomly assign students to groups. Could be wrong.

 

You may be right. Looking at Clay,D. 1998 - it seems that there was no statistical difference between the post-test scores of both groups, but the Saxon group had improvements of 65% over the pre-test scores. It sounds like they chose the students who were behind in math for the Saxon group and they ended up doing as well as the other group (not Dolciani) at the end of the year - if I'm understanding it correctly.

 

In the Dolciani vs Saxon study, they don't mention how each group performed on the pre-test.

 

Would be nice to have some independent more controlled studies on how these different methods work. But the results really only apply for helping large schools to choose their curricula. For us, even if a text doesn't work for 80 percent of the students, if it works well for one of ours, then it's the best choice. : )

Edited January 17, 2012 by Teachin'Mine

[kiana]

Would be nice to have some independent more controlled studies on how these different methods work. But the results really only apply for helping large schools to choose their curricula. For us' date=' even if a text doesn't work for 80 percent of the students, if it works well for one of ours, then it's the best choice. : )[/[/b']QUOTE]

 

Absolutely. 100%.

 

Me, I don't really like Saxon. I loathe, despise, and abhor it. But ... if I strongly felt it was the RIGHT course of action -- that it was the RIGHT program for someone -- that it would work when others wouldn't, I'd swallow my bile and order it.

[Teachin'Mine]

Would be nice to have some independent more controlled studies on how these different methods work. But the results really only apply for helping large schools to choose their curricula. For us' date=' even if a text doesn't work for 80 percent of the students, if it works well for one of ours, then it's the best choice. : )[/[/b']QUOTE]

 

Absolutely. 100%.

 

Me, I don't really like Saxon. I loathe, despise, and abhor it. But ... if I strongly felt it was the RIGHT course of action -- that it was the RIGHT program for someone -- that it would work when others wouldn't, I'd swallow my bile and order it.

 

:lol:

[Surfside Academy]

Does anyone know if Dolciani samples are available online? I haven't been able to find any. Also, Amazon has the course book listed for $65. It seems a little high. Is that about the going rate? I'd hate to spend that much and find out that it may not work for us :glare:

[quark]

There are used copies of Algebra Book 1 here.

[quark]

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting these sample pages! And I hope they are clear enough to read! This is from my year 2000 ed. textbook.

Edited January 17, 2012 by quark

[quark]

Should help you see what is meant by A, B and C problems. A is simply to practice the concept. B requires a little more thinking and C is usually challenge level problems.

 

HTH!

 

ETA: Dolciani's Algebra II and Jurgensen's Geometry use a similar format/ layout.

Edited January 17, 2012 by quark

[yvonne]

Thanks, Quark! :)

[lewelma]

I didn't quite catch why some people are purposely using the older editions. How does the 85/88 compare to the 2000?

 

Ruth in NZ

[Halcyon]

Many people successfully use both, BUT the programs are very different. I am not a mathematician or math teacher (except to my own children), but as far as I could see, the emphasis with Saxon is constant review, very short lessons, and memorizing algorithms. The emphasis with Dociani is laying a foundation for proper mathematical thinking and problem solving.

 

Saxon isn't really broken up into chapters which each deal with one topic, the Dolciani is. A lesson in Saxon consists of a short bit of text and example problem teaching a new math technique or step, and then 30 problems. The first 4 or so practise the new step. The rest are "review". Some of the review is real review, doing something one already knows well. Some of the review is more complicated versions of one of the past lessons, in other words, problems from the rest of a normal textbook's problem set. A more typical math textbook problem set contains a few problems that work exactly like the example problems, a few designed to point out anything tricky about the concept covered in the chapter, some that require you to use the concept in all the ordinary ways, and some that require you to be creative and problem solve and combine it with other things and use it in more unusual way. These are all spread out in Saxon throughout many lessons. This means that concepts are broken up into little pieces, and if the student has the sort of brain wiring that makes it difficult to put together the little pieces into the whole concept, the sort that lets them be content to focus on doing the current task and does not refuse to do a small task without understanding how that task fits into everything else they know, then there is a good chance that the student will appear to be doing just fine in math, answering most of the Saxon problem set correctly, but be totally incapable of applying the math in any other situation, like science or a building project. (One of mine was this way. Saxon was a disaster for him.)

 

Saxon emphasizes algorithms. A Saxon student is good at plugging through an algorithm to get the correct answer. Saxon, at least in my very limited experience, was good at teaching how to do simple word problems, ones that followed the pattern of the examples, but not good at teaching how to solve real-life problems, ones that were not already written out for you using the same language cues as Saxon, or ones that required you to be more creative or ones that were more complex.

 

Saxon is good at not letting you forget anything, and it is designed to be simple for a student to use on their own. *I*, however, have children that are capable of being ...creative? ...inexperienced? with directions and misinterpreting anything. They see all other possible ways to interpret an explanation or set of directions and are likely to choose one that the author did not mean. That means that unless I watch them carefully, they quickly become a mass of tangled misconceptions about how something actually works. Either that, or unless the directions are very, very good.

 

In Dolciani, the emphasis is on correct mathematical thinking - in other words, the directions are very, very good and far less open to misinterpretation because Dolciani uses the very precise mathematical language. For my children, this saved oodles of time. Dolciani is good at teaching problem solving. The text is broken up into chapters which deal with one topic. A lesson has some text (more than Saxon), vocab in red (which must be memorized or you won't understand future lessons - there is a glossary in the back), examples, usually some oral problems to do, and then several problem sets dealing with different aspects of the lesson. At the end of the chapter are more word probems and a review lesson and problem set and usually some sort of extension of the chapter (a biography or more things one can do with the concept).

 

Singapore math's emphasis is on problem solving and application. Singapore's textbooks are laid out very much the way Dolciani's are, but there is more emphasis on applying the material to engineering and science problems and less emphasis on applying the material to math problems. It seemed to me that Singapore textbooks are aimed at future engineers whereas Dolciani textbooks are aimed at future mathematicians. Both would probably work for either, but if you are a mathematician, you are probably going to like Dolciani better than Singapore.

 

Does that help?

Nan

 

Just chiming in to say thank you--this is a really helpful analysis of Dolciani.

[quark]

Thanks, Quark! :)

 

A pleasure! Please note that the Dolciani and Jurgensen textbooks only include solutions to odd-numbered problems/ exercises. Full solution key is quite expensive:

Algebra I

Algebra II

 

ETA: If interested in Jurgensen Geometry, the program is offered by Duke Tip and I believe they include solutions to the even and odd-numbered assigned problems.

Edited January 18, 2012 by quark

[quark]

In Dolciani, the emphasis is on correct mathematical thinking - in other words, the directions are very, very good and far less open to misinterpretation because Dolciani uses the very precise mathematical language. For my children, this saved oodles of time. Dolciani is good at teaching problem solving. The text is broken up into chapters which deal with one topic. A lesson has some text (more than Saxon), vocab in red (which must be memorized or you won't understand future lessons - there is a glossary in the back), examples, usually some oral problems to do, and then several problem sets dealing with different aspects of the lesson. At the end of the chapter are more word probems and a review lesson and problem set and usually some sort of extension of the chapter (a biography or more things one can do with the concept).

 

:iagree:IMO, this is a very good analysis of Dolciani. The text is very clearly written. You can easily skip the classroom exercises and use only the written exercises, challenge and mixed review sections. The extensions have given us interesting diversions. We use index cards to help us remember the vocab/ properties so that we don't have to keep searching for and flipping to the relevant pages.