Chena 11 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Seeking wisdom from people that have used this curriculum. Thanks!:001_smile: Chena from Georgia Quote Link to post Share on other sites

mims 107 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Comprehensive and fairly easy to understand. I felt my kids learned what they needed to without too much struggle. It has a few proofs (I think an average of 4) every lesson. I think proofs are important but they are a little hard to grade. They give one path but you always know there are more possibilities. The rest of the grading is very easy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

ereks mom 461 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Comprehensive and fairly easy to understand. I felt my kids learned what they needed to without too much struggle. It has a few proofs (I think an average of 4) every lesson. I think proofs are important but they are a little hard to grade. They give one path but you always know there are more possibilities. The rest of the grading is very easy. :iagree: EK did well with it. The explanations are thorough and easy to understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Julie in MN 604 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't know anything about any other years of TT, but the Geometry year was very similar in scope to Jacobs' Geometry and my mathy son liked TT a lot better. I liked Jacobs just fine, and appreciated the way he showed real-life math, but it was way too conversational for my son. He felt TT was clear and to-the-point, used more "mathy words" instead of leading you through a thinking process that didn't match my son's brain. Julie Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Lang Syne Boardie 36,657 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 My son is halfway through this program. He's averaged 96% from the beginning. He really, really likes it, says it's quick and easy. I wish TT had a better rep for the other programs. I've heard that the Geometry course is considered to be solid, but I haven't heard such glowing reviews of Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus. So, although ds wants to go on with TT, I'm not really done researching yet. He did Algebra 1 with Saxon. His grades were fine but he hated every minute of it. It was just too wordy, and too incremental. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Lori in MS 27 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) What could be used alongside TT Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus to make it more advanced? I like the TT approach and would prefer to add to it than not use it at all. Would a student be ready for Saxon Advanced math after Precalculus? My ds has a B in Saxon Algebra 1 but went very slowly. He started in 8th grade and has 8 lessons left (now is in middle of 9th) I am trying to decide whether to use TT Geometry or Jacobs Geometry. Edited January 27, 2012 by Lori in MS Quote Link to post Share on other sites

MyThreeSons 2,257 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 I've taught Geometry at our co-op for several years. The first year we used Jacobs; the last five we've used Discovering Geometry by Key Curriculum Press. (Actually, it is now owned by Kendall Hunt.) I have also tutored several students who were using TT Geometry. I consider TT to be Geometry Light. It's okay, but doesn't require students to really think deeply. The proofs in the homework sets are just like the ones presented in the lessons, just with different values for the angles, etc. It is also very light on constructions, which I think are crucial to understanding the concepts. In fact, they throw in the constructions at the end, rather than using them to enhance the understanding of the concepts. Overall, I'd say TT Geometry was minimally adequate. (If I had to choose between TT and Abeka, though, I'd choose TT hands-down.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites

anneofalamo 12 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 we did algebra 1 and Geometry with TT, my son (who is a math guy) did well, and this year, we wanted to give MUS a whirl for Algebra 2. He loves it, we score together, and he says he likes the extra work or practice problems. Yeah, he likes math. I asked him if he could do it over, and he says he would go with MUS, but obviously TT didn't kill him. (he is 15 1/2 and dry humor), but that his Science might! hahah for the record, I feel a bit more involved with the MUS, as we score daily together, and I am remembering my Algebra2 from 1981! hahah Quote Link to post Share on other sites

tex-mex 178 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Old thread about TT versus other textbooks: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235452&highlight=TT+Geometry Many people have vouched that TT Geomtery is solid and good prep for the SAT/ACT. We are using it and have no complaints. I do the lessons and tests along with my son. The lectures are boring -- more for the student who needs extra help. For the bright student, it is dull. :D I personally like how they prepare the student to look at proofs in a different light and then when proofs appear in real form -- it isn't that difficult. Brain exercise, but not impossible. I am also supplementing with Patty Paper Geometry to get ds used to vocabulary and hands-on work for Geometry. I like it. Fun! ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Mommyfaithe 1,788 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 What could be used alongside TT Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus to make it more advanced? I like the TT approach and would prefer to add to it than not use it at all. Would a student be ready for Saxon Advanced math after Precalculus? My ds has a B in Saxon Algebra 1 but went very slowly. He started in 8th grade and has 8 lessons left (now is in middle of 9th) I am trying to decide whether to use TT Geometry or Jacobs Geometry. We used Life of Fred along with TT...and also a Larson text for extra practice problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Julie in MN 604 Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 What could be used alongside TT Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus to make it more advanced? I like the TT approach and would prefer to add to it than not use it at all. Would a student be ready for Saxon Advanced math after Precalculus? My ds has a B in Saxon Algebra 1 but went very slowly. He started in 8th grade and has 8 lessons left (now is in middle of 9th) I am trying to decide whether to use TT Geometry or Jacobs Geometry. I'd hate to think that a student would have to use precalculus, a supplement to precalc, and advanced math. Wouldn't it be better to roll all 3 into 1? I suppose if one of them included a good dose of "algebra 3" or something? Maybe there are extras like that which you'd be covering with advanced math? I'll be listening to see what someone more experienced thinks of that. I've taught Geometry at our co-op for several years. The first year we used Jacobs; the last five we've used Discovering Geometry by Key Curriculum Press. (Actually, it is now owned by Kendall Hunt.) I have also tutored several students who were using TT Geometry. I consider TT to be Geometry Light. It's okay, but doesn't require students to really think deeply. The proofs in the homework sets are just like the ones presented in the lessons, just with different values for the angles, etc. It is also very light on constructions, which I think are crucial to understanding the concepts. In fact, they throw in the constructions at the end, rather than using them to enhance the understanding of the concepts. Overall, I'd say TT Geometry was minimally adequate. (If I had to choose between TT and Abeka, though, I'd choose TT hands-down.) As far as geometry, I really feel our experience with TT and with Jacobs was the same. MyThreeSons says that TT doesn't emphasize constructions, meaning the drawing part, like seeing where two circles intersect. I guess that was in Jacobs more often, but my son was so annoyed, telling me he gets the point already, why does he have to draw. And he really did get it, he's just a kid who gets math in his head (which I credit to Singapore). On the other hand, my son thought TT used more "mathy terms" rather than "simplified chatting." So they probably each have their strengths and weaknesses, and some kids may respond to one more than the other, but at my house, both are solid geometry programs and have been enough to teach the logic and the knowledge needed. And just to emphasize that, my oldest son is a working engineer and because of a ridiculous public school situation, he never even had high school geometry. He still had his pick of colleges and employers. Julie Quote Link to post Share on other sites

MyThreeSons 2,257 Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 MyThreeSons says that TT doesn't emphasize constructions, meaning the drawing part, like seeing where two circles intersect. There is so much more to constructions. The concrete nature of constructions helps many students to really "own" the concepts. For example: Constructing the perpendicular bisector of a segment to show that every point on that bisector is equidistant from the endpoints of the segment Constructing an angle bisector and showing that every point on that bisector is equidistant from the sides of the angle Using the techniques of copying segments and angles to show why ASA, AAS, SSS, and SAS produce two triangles are congruent, while AAA and SSA do not necessarily produce congruent triangles. Using constructions to locate points of concurrency: the incenter, the circumcenter, the centroid and the orthocenter; and then constructing the inscribed circle or circumscribed circle, etc. Yes, TT probably adequately prepares a student to take the PSAT/SAT/ACT, but I still don't think TT's proofs are rigorous. Remember, the standardized tests don't have proofs on them. I currently have a student who worked thru TT Geometry last school year, and had a solid A. She felt like she wasn't really understanding the "why" behind what she was doing, and is now in my co-op Geometry class using Discovering Geometry. She is having to work very hard to maintain a B+/A-. After saying all of this, though, please note that I still recommend TT Geometry for some students, but not for those who are planning a STEM career. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

Guest brand.chips Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Teaching Textbooks have been specifically designed for homeschoolers. They contain far more explanations than typical math books, and feature step-by-step solutions to ALL problems in a multimedia form. Both of the above features can be of enormous help to those homeschooling parents who do not know math well themselves. The books include Pre-Algebra, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry, and grade-level packages from 5th grade through 7th. Price: $184.90 for each product, which includes textbooks, answer key, tests, and CDs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

creekland 41,103 Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 What could be used alongside TT Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus to make it more advanced? I like the TT approach and would prefer to add to it than not use it at all. Would a student be ready for Saxon Advanced math after Precalculus? Pick up some older copies of Lial's Algebra and Pre-Calc. Students can use TT for learning, then get deeper problem sets from Lial's. Older copies of Lial's are incredibly inexpensive when bought online. My guys have used TT (Alg 1, Alg 2, Geom, Pre-Calc) and have done extremely well with both the SAT/ACT (top 3% and top 1% respectively for math) and in Calculus immediately thereafter with no extra review needed. I bought the Lial's books AFTER my guys took the tests and only due to the negative TT comments on here. Oldest never had them, middle never had problems doing questions from them, so my set is now just reference for me for my ps teaching. It comes in useful there as the school curriculum - CPM Math - is horrible. Youngest, who insists on being at ps, is supplementing CPM with TT to ensure he gets the foundational knowledge he needs. Anyway, oldest did Chalkdust Calc. Middle is doing Thinkwell's Calc. (Both tested very easily into Calc with some of the highest scores their cc counselor had seen - but that isn't saying much from our area. To do cc around here a student has to test into college level courses for all subjects, not just the ones they want to take.) Count me among those who like TT - unless the specific student can't learn from it. TT isn't right for every student. Some need a more hands on style (as mentioned above). There's no crime in that at all. Match the curriculum to the student. Quote Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.