Dolciani Algebra rationale

[dereksurfs]

For those who use Dolciani for Algebra:

 

1. What do you like about Dolciani over other textbooks such as Foerster? Why is this your curriculum of choice?

2. Do you intentionally have a really old version? Is it that much better than the newer versions such as this in your opinion: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Structure-Method-Book-1/dp/0395430526

3. How hard was it to get the solutions manual, expensive?

4. Are you aware of any instructional videos which align fairly well with the text such as Khan Academy, Math without Borders, AoPS, etc..? If so have you used them with any success? I'm not talking about private tutors.

5. Do you suppliment the text with other materials?

 

I am primarily considering Foerster coupled with Math without Borders. But it seems like there are a lot of positive comments made about Dolciani as well. So I am weighing the pros/cons of these along other top rated textbooks.

 

Thanks,

Edited January 22, 2012 by dereksurfs

[quark]

Having a bit of insomnia tonight so I thought I'd attempt answers :D. Hopefully, you'll have better answers in the morning!

 

 

1. What do you like about Dolciani over other textbooks such as Foerster? Why is this your curriculum of choice?

 

We used a private tutor for Algebra I and Dolciani was the tutor's text of choice. After purchasing the text and trying it for a couple of weeks, son and I really liked the straightforward format. Clean, non-cluttered text (although we like AoPS, we find it very visually cluttered) and the concepts are presented very clearly. So clearly that my son could use it independently whenever I was too busy to work with him or we took a few weeks off from using the tutor due to life events. We liked Dolciani so much that we've decided to continue with Dolciani for Algebra 2 and are currently using the very similar Jurgensen/ Brown text for Geometry (without a tutor for now).

2. Do you intentionally have a really old version? Is it that much better than the newer versions such as this in your opinion: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Structure-Method-Book-1/dp/0395430526

 

Ours is the 2000 ed. I believe so can't answer this. Am curious what others have to say.

 

3. How hard was it to get the solutions manual, expensive?

 

Since we used a tutor for Alg1, we didn't need the manual. I just looked and found a few used ones here. Seems inexpensive at $18-$20 (at time of writing this reply) but I'd check with the seller just in case that it's the product you are looking for. I know you didn't ask but I found the Geometry and Alg2 solutions manuals on Amazon to be much more expensive than the Alg1 solutions manual linked above.

 

4. Are you aware of any instructional videos which align fairly well with the text such as Khan Academy, Math without Borders, AoPS, etc..? If so have you used them with any success? I'm not talking about private tutors.

 

I personally find the Brightstorm site easier to navigate than Khan but no, sorry, we didn't use them. You could also investigate the Teaching Company videos to see if the Algebra aligns with whichever edition of Dolciani you decide to buy.

 

5. Do you suppliment the text with other materials?

 

We used Dolciani Alg 1 with a younger student (and I notice from your siggy that you might too?) so it was plenty for him to read and complete homework assigned by his tutor, especially during the weeks that I was busy. He was also working on an AoPS Counting and Probability online course at the same time so it would have been too much to supplement me thinks. This was also the first time I required him to write every single step of his work down. Dolciani was thorough enough for him.

 

His tutor did not spend a lot of time on the word problems though so I purchased this book as "insurance" and may use it to review word problems if my son shows any need for the review before we begin Alg2. So far, he doesn't seem to need it.

 

I hope this helps some what!

[melmichigan]

Dolciani as a whole gets very high marks from many of the groups that review and score math textbooks, mostly A's, you can search them online. I believe that the older Dolciani teaches more of the theory that many feel has been removed newer math books in the mid to later 70's. As if there is a point where math began to be watered down. I haven't had a lot of time to spend with it but have the 1962 edition, it is very different than textbooks today. (I'd be interested to hear from others because to me it more closely resembles AoPS than any other text I have on the shelf.)

[dereksurfs]

Having a bit of insomnia tonight so I thought I'd attempt answers :D. Hopefully, you'll have better answers in the morning!

 

We used a private tutor for Algebra I and Dolciani was the tutor's text of choice. After purchasing the text and trying it for a couple of weeks, son and I really liked the straightforward format. Clean, non-cluttered text (although we like AoPS, we find it very visually cluttered) and the concepts are presented very clearly. So clearly that my son could use it independently whenever I was too busy to work with him or we took a few weeks off from using the tutor due to life events. We liked Dolciani so much that we've decided to continue with Dolciani for Algebra 2 and are currently using the very similar Jurgensen/ Brown text for Geometry (without a tutor for now).

Thank you for sharing your experience with it. I'm also glad to hear from those who use and like the newer versions. Although I have read some threads on the 1960s books being great I'm not sure I would go that route in search of such buried treasure.:D Though it may be fun trying. One parent here mentioned her dc not being too keen on using such an ancient looking book. While only the content should matter, there probably is a psychological hurdle for some students in using 50 y/o books to learn from, not to mention the difficulty in obtaining the teacher's manuals and solution manuals. Its pretty amazing to me that they are so sought after, like collectors items almost. I think of an Indiana Jones type Holy Grail search.

 

Ours is the 2000 ed. I believe so can't answer this. Am curious what others have to say. Since we used a tutor for Alg1, we didn't need the manual. I just looked and found a few used ones here. Seems inexpensive at $18-$20 (at time of writing this reply) but I'd check with the seller just in case that it's the product you are looking for. I know you didn't ask but I found the Geometry and Alg2 solutions manuals on Amazon to be much more expensive than the Alg1 solutions manual linked above.

Thanks for the link. I've also heard its hard to get accurate info on what you are actually buying vs. something which looks similar. And the older books don't even have ISBNs.

 

I personally find the Brightstorm site easier to navigate than Khan but no, sorry, we didn't use them. You could also investigate the Teaching Company videos to see if the Algebra aligns with whichever edition of Dolciani you decide to buy.

I'll check these out, thanks. This is more important to us since we don't want to pay for private tutors for each child and my wife doesn't feel comfortable being the only teacher, though I do help them at night after work.

 

Thank you,

Edited January 22, 2012 by dereksurfs

[PeterPan]

Derek--Dolciani can get sorta religious around here, so watch out. :) Seriously, it's good, I was taught with it, blah blah. But, having been taught with it (and being in the 5%, not the 1%??) I always felt there was a little something missing. It builds concepts in a very theoretical way, and you have to be willing to live with that and think her way. Word problems are low compared to Foerster. Foerster's explanations will be very, very similar on some points, but Dolciani is more this fountain for mathematical thirst and Foerster the gym swimming pool (don't drink, blah, just paddle).

 

Personally, I suggest you try your library system and see if you can get both of these on ILL. Or buy inexpensive copies. They're easy to sell off if you change your mind, and sometimes you can snag them for $5-10. I think Derek Owens has classes using Dolciani. Has he recorded them on dvd yet? He did his pre-algebra.

 

Now this is me and only me. I think there's something *more* that a teacher or person who has a clue can bring to the math instruction when you get to this level. If you want to do Saxon independently and just crunch as it says, fine. I think Foerster can be crunched that way. But once you get to Dolciani, where they're really trying to get you to scratch your head a bit with those C level problems, I think it's good to be working through it with someone who has a clue or loves it. I suppose you can do without, but I'm just saying I think the results will be better.

 

I still have my mid-80's dolciani algebra 2 text from high school, hehe, and I got a mid-60's algebra 1 tm to have a look at it. They *say* the newest dolciani texts have been trimmed down; I don't know. That mid-60's thing is so wacky (just being honest here), it's not going to make most people happy. So unless you happen to be a math major who really WANTS to sit there teaching your kids the algebra, I'd go with the newer Dolciani (of those two) and not feel guilty at all. It's going to have the newer layout and whatnot you're wanting.

 

Oh, you asked in another thread about the Dolciani advanced pre-algebra text. It's very good, and you can probably get it inexpensively enough that it would be worth looking at before jumping into the Dolciani algebra 1 text. But I'm not a huge LoF fan. I think it's fine in theory, but only if your kid is the theoretical type that gets proficient with that amount of practice. ;) You might at least see if you can find a copy to look at.

 

BTW, I think you're correct that Dolciani is above Foerster as far as conceptual teaching. I'd use Dolciani with a math-gifted student. But Foerster has the word problems the more engineering types will like. It's all trade-offs. I also think it's reasonable to use two books, one as the main and the other just bringing in word problems.

Edited January 22, 2012 by OhElizabeth

[Halcyon]

We're getting Dolciani and Lial's in the mail (soon, I hope) and I will compare them (and AoPS PreA ) on my blog when I have a chance to peruse them.

[quark]

You are welcome, Derek. I do want to be very clear though that my son only used the book independently for about 5% of the time (when I was ill for example, or very busy with some other things and could not help him). I usually work right by his side. It brings so much more to the learning in my humble opinion.

 

I understand why you might not want to use a tutor and can imagine how much more difficult it is to work intensely with multiple children (mine is an only, so a little easier in that respect) but I also agree with OhE's very valid point about someone else bringing something extra to the instruction. I'm not a math major (although I had no trouble understanding the math in Alg1) and the tutor's approach was helpful because he would also show my son other ways to approach the problem, ways I have forgotten or may not have thought about.

 

As OhE said, Derek Owens uses Dolciani for Algebra I (but not for Algebra 2, I'm not sure why). He only teaches live somewhere in Atlanta so unless you live nearby, his course will be distance ed for your kids.

 

Good luck Derek!

[lewelma]

I still have my mid-80's dolciani algebra 2 text from high school, hehe, and I got a mid-60's algebra 1 tm to have a look at it. They *say* the newest dolciani texts have been trimmed down; I don't know. That mid-60's thing is so wacky (just being honest here), it's not going to make most people happy. So unless you happen to be a math major who really WANTS to sit there teaching your kids the algebra, I'd go with the newer Dolciani (of those two) and not feel guilty at all. It's going to have the newer layout and whatnot you're wanting.

 

When you say "newer" are you referring to the 1980s text or the 2000s?

 

Ruth in NZ

[melmichigan]

That mid-60's thing is so wacky (just being honest here), it's not going to make most people happy.

 

Glad you said it. ;)

 

I have a hard time just looking through Dolciani and making sense out of it, which is why I was so thrilled to find AoPS. I can open AoPS up and understand it.

[PeterPan]

Just for the op's trivia, Derek Owens has all the videos for his pre-algebra class online and viewable for free. http://www.LucidEducation.com/Prealgebra.php

[dereksurfs]

Just for the op's trivia, Derek Owens has all the videos for his pre-algebra class online and viewable for free. http://www.LucidEducation.com/Prealgebra.php

 

Yes, I saw that. Its like a freeby for your first Pre-A class with him. It seems like many ppl are happy with the quality of his classes. And this may be a good fit for our family as well since my wife needs some help with secondary math instruction during day. His courses are much more expensive than going the Foerster/Math without Borders route. But it may be worth it.

[dereksurfs]

Derek--Dolciani can get sorta religious around here, so watch out. :) Seriously, it's good, I was taught with it, blah blah. But, having been taught with it (and being in the 5%, not the 1%??) I always felt there was a little something missing. It builds concepts in a very theoretical way, and you have to be willing to live with that and think her way. Word problems are low compared to Foerster. Foerster's explanations will be very, very similar on some points, but Dolciani is more this fountain for mathematical thirst and Foerster the gym swimming pool (don't drink, blah, just paddle).

 

Personally, I suggest you try your library system and see if you can get both of these on ILL. Or buy inexpensive copies. They're easy to sell off if you change your mind, and sometimes you can snag them for $5-10. I think Derek Owens has classes using Dolciani. Has he recorded them on dvd yet? He did his pre-algebra.

 

 

Thanks for discussing differences. I noticed the somewhat religious love for the Dolciani books, especially the 60s editions. I would probably go with the *somewhat* newer ones. I may pick one or two up just to queck and compare with Foerster. I don't know Derek Owens used Dolciani. Thanks for that info.

 

Now this is me and only me. I think there's something *more* that a teacher or person who has a clue can bring to the math instruction when you get to this level. If you want to do Saxon independently and just crunch as it says, fine. I think Foerster can be crunched that way. But once you get to Dolciani, where they're really trying to get you to scratch your head a bit with those C level problems, I think it's good to be working through it with someone who has a clue or loves it. I suppose you can do without, but I'm just saying I think the results will be better.

 

Yes, my dw and I are aware of our limits in terms of what she feels comfortable teaching. Math was never her passion in school although she did ok with it. So I am definately looking for ways to help her out either with online classes (e.g. Derek Owens) or instructional video (Math w/o Borders) once we hit Algebra.

[PeterPan]

Yes, then definitely pick up copies of each to decide for yourself, or see if your library can get them. I've gotten a LOT of textbooks via ILL, which gives me at least long enough to look at them and decide if they would work for us and when.

 

I wouldn't necessarily conclude Dolciani is *better* than Foerster. On some points their explanations are almost identical (I've lined them up, textbook to textbook). And sometimes the explanation in Foerster is actually BETTER. Foerster has a lot more application (something many engineering people will find enjoyable) and Dolciani has a lot more theory (C level problems that are solved via conceptual understanding, set theory, emphasis on definitions, etc.). So they're totally different and would appeal to different types of students. Just given everything you've said, my *guess* is Foerster would be a better fit of the two.

 

You would want to watch the Derek Owens videos before you signed up for a course with him. He talks really fast. David Chandler of MWB doesn't talk so fast, which may be a plus or a huge minus, depending on your student.

[Mrs Twain]

2. Do you intentionally have a really old version? Is it that much better than the newer versions such as this in your opinion: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Structure-Method-Book-1/dp/0395430526

 

I am also researching pre-algebra/algebra books, and have the same question.

 

If I may reask the question--

Which Dociani editions do you consider good? Which editions would you recommend?

By the "old" editions, do you mean 1960's? Are the 1980's editions considered the "old" editions?

Or would 1980's editions be considered the newer ones, or just the 2000's editions?

[dereksurfs]

I am also researching pre-algebra/algebra books, and have the same question.

 

If I may reask the question--

Which Dociani editions do you consider good? Which editions would you recommend?

By the "old" editions, do you mean 1960's? Are the 1980's editions considered the "old" editions?

Or would 1980's editions be considered the newer ones, or just the 2000's editions?

 

Sorry, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.:tongue_smilie: I know some aficionados would only use the 1960s editions. But many other people use the newer editions including Derek Owens for his classes and seem happy to use them. I guess I can also understand how some ppl feel the earlier 60s editions are classics based on the 'New Math' of the day. But I don't think that invalidates the quality of the newer ones also written by Dolciani. I wonder what her opinion would be regarding all these various editions if still alive? I somehow have a feeling she wouldn't be quite as hung up on the older vs. newer books for her own students.

Edited January 24, 2012 by dereksurfs

[Corraleno]

Sorry, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me.:tongue_smilie: I know some aficionados would only use the 1960s editions. But many other people use the newer editions including Derek Owens for his classes and seem happy to use them. I guess I can also understand how some ppl feel the earlier 60s editions are classics based on the 'New Math' of the day. But I don't think that invalidates the quality of the newer ones also written by Dolciani.

Well, she died in 1985, so anything newer than that wasn't written/revised by her.

 

By the "old" editions, do you mean 1960's? Are the 1980's editions considered the "old" editions?

When people speak of the "old" editions, I believe they're generally referring to the 60s-mid-70's editions. I have 1965 editions. There have been threads here discussing the differences between the various editions, if you click the "dolciani" tag, it should pull up some of them.

 

ETA: Some useful info in this thread.

 

Jackie

Edited January 25, 2012 by Corraleno
add link

[Mrs Twain]

 

 

When people speak of the "old" editions, I believe they're generally referring to the 60s-mid-70's editions. I have 1965 editions. There have been threads here discussing the differences between the various editions, if you click the "dolciani" tag, it should pull up some of them.

 

ETA: Some useful info in this thread.

 

Jackie

 

Thank you for the info, Jackie. The link is great!

[Halcyon]

.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Halcyon

[dereksurfs]

Well, she died in 1985, so anything newer than that wasn't written/revised by her.

Yes, I know. But there were a lot of Algebra books published and written by her beyond the 60s up until the 80s when she died. And even the books after her death continue to use her content as a contributing author. I'm not saying there aren't differences. I'm simply saying the newer aren't necessarily bad books either. Of course some will prefer the vintage copies. I did read some those threads tagged dolciani mentioned below.

 

When people speak of the "old" editions, I believe they're generally referring to the 60s-mid-70's editions. I have 1965 editions. There have been threads here discussing the differences between the various editions, if you click the "dolciani" tag, it should pull up some of them.

 

ETA: Some useful info in this thread.

 

Jackie

 

So is the general idea that 60s > 70s > 80s > 90s > 2000? I more curious about the 1980s-2000+ differences.

Edited January 25, 2012 by dereksurfs

[boscopup]

So is the general idea that 60s > 70s > 80s > 90s > 2000? I more curious about the 1980s-2000+ differences.

 

I have the 1985 pre-algebra book (which I am really enjoying working through myself - it's more challenging than it looked at first glance!). I believe it was Quark who posted pics of the 2000 pre-algebra book? Or maybe someone else. Anyway, the page layout was quite different. The 2000 book had random pictures and such. The 1985 book has no pictures, except where the picture is used as part of the math involved. It's clear, plain text, with boxes around important definitions and such, and then you have your problem sets.

 

I don't know how the math itself compares - whether there were any changes or not. The presentation is quite different though.

[dereksurfs]

I have the 1985 pre-algebra book (which I am really enjoying working through myself - it's more challenging than it looked at first glance!). I believe it was Quark who posted pics of the 2000 pre-algebra book? Or maybe someone else. Anyway, the page layout was quite different. The 2000 book had random pictures and such. The 1985 book has no pictures, except where the picture is used as part of the math involved. It's clear, plain text, with boxes around important definitions and such, and then you have your problem sets.

 

I don't know how the math itself compares - whether there were any changes or not. The presentation is quite different though.

 

Thanks, this is good to know. There are obvious tradeoffs. I imagine the various editions have different appeal to different parents/children. IMO content is more important than color/pretty pictures, etc... But I also think there is a bit of a psychological hurdle for some students using an ancient 1960s textbook for example vs. something a bit more modern looking.

[boscopup]

Ok I only got the pre algebra book yesterday (found it used on Amazon for cheap). I really should probably not even comment, but I'll share my first thought.

 

And that is....

 

It looks like a math textbook. :lol:

 

I haven't seen the magic. Maybe I need to give it a chance.

 

:lol: That was my first thought too. I've worked through the first chapter now, and I am seeing why it's considered good. I think it's a bit too dry math textbook for DS's young age, but who knows. He might like it when he actually uses it (at least a year from now). I've certainly warmed up to it. Some of the problems were even hard for me, but not all. I breezed through the C questions in the first few sections, then hit one where they suddenly were much harder than the others. I found myself asking a non-mathy friend for help on a few problems, and I went through diff eq and linear algebra in college. :lol:

 

And um... I'd completely forgotten how to divide by decimals. I had to look that up in MM5. :001_huh: Things I never did as an engineer... divide by decimals by hand. :tongue_smilie:

 

I will say I got the book for dirt cheap on Amazon and the copy was in amazing condition (as if it was never used).

Yes! Mine was about $6 shipped, and it was a public school discard. Didn't look like it'd ever been used. It was probably sitting in a box for the last several years. So even if I don't use it as my son's main text, it was still worth getting. The explanations seem good, and they do a good job showing you the "why" of things (like why x^0 is 1, or why the commutative property works, etc.).

[boscopup]

Are you using the Algebra or the Pre Algebra?

 

Pre-algebra, 1985 version.

[JeanM]

We used a 1970's era Dolciani algebra book as a supplement to Life of Fred Beginning Algebra. DS wasn't bothered by the age of the book at all, actually I think he found it amusing that it was "ancient." I didn't have an answer key or solutions manual, but I'm very comfortable with algebra. The answers to the odd number questions are in the back of the book, but they are just answers.

 

If you want to know why we used an old Dolciani, there are a couple of reasons. It was really cheap (I think 25 cents plus shipping), there was a nostalgia factor since DH and I used that book way back when, and I'd read good things about Dolciani algebra on these boards.

[dereksurfs]

This is a follow-up regarding the differences between 'earlier' Dolciani Algebra books (1960-70s) which some prefer versus the newer editions. Now you can see these for yourself online at 'Open Library' which I find very helpful. Take a look here: http://openlibrary.o...olciani algebra

 

I discovered two main things in having the chance to actually look inside these books myself. First, Dolciani's Modern algebra: structure and method (1970) was my algebra book growing up! Apparently during the 70s & 80s these books were a de facto standard for most public schools. In reviewing it I actually remembered much of what I liked about the book. What stands out most is its unclutered, concise and clear presentation. The entire book is only ~ 600 pages and its not a large book. This is quite different when comparing it a Lial's or other more verbose, cluttered texts covering the same subject.

 

Secondly, in looking through the 1992 version I actually think it would be fine as well and even prefer it in some regards. I like the addition of programming concepts and the layout is a bit more readable.

 

Obviously everyone will have their preferences. But at least now you can compare these differences yourself. Lastly, please, if you check a book out make sure to 'check it back in' afterwards. It wasn't obvious to me at first that I needed to click on the 'Return Book' button vs. just closing the browser. So when I went back to the website I noticed the book was locked in checked-out mode by some Yahoo. Well, when I logged back into the site it turned out that Yahoo was me! :tongue_smilie: