McDougal Littell Algebra 2 and Geometry

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Recently I posted a thread on looking for an Algebra 2 and Geometry curriculum. I also made a request on the local homeschool assistance page and the leader sent over the teachers edition and student text of McDougal Littell Algebra 2 and Geometry books for me to use (if I wanted...the homeschool assist program here has curriculum on hand we can borrow free of charge). Has anyone used this? Any info on these would be great.

[cindylee]

I am a math tutor and used them to teach some home schoolers who were using the same curriculum as a local private school. I liked them and thought they were thorough. I actually looked for them to use with my oldest daughter but couldn't find them without being so expensive. Hope this helps.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I am a math tutor and used them to teach some home schoolers who were using the same curriculum as a local private school. I liked them and thought they were thorough. I actually looked for them to use with my oldest daughter but couldn't find them without being so expensive. Hope this helps.

Yes, it does.

One..someone has heard of them

and two ...someone who has used them and liked them.

Thanks for posting.

[Gwen in VA]

Are you talking about the Geometry by Jurgensen, Brown, and Jurgensen?

 

If so, it's a wonderful wonderful text! The highly-regarded public school in our town in MA uses it, which is how I found out about it. We have used it with all our mathy kids, and I use it in a geometry class I teach for homeschoolers.

 

Highly recommended!

[Elise]

Are you talking about the Geometry by Jurgensen, Brown, and Jurgensen?

 

If so, it's a wonderful wonderful text! The highly-regarded public school in our town in MA uses it, which is how I found out about it. We have used it with all our mathy kids, and I use it in a geometry class I teach for homeschoolers.

 

Highly recommended!

 

:iagree:

 

We used the text this year in conjunction with the Duke/TIP Independent Study program materials (CD-Roms, mentor manual, quizzes, tests) with our two oldest dd's and thought it was terrific. Two thumbs up here!

[Martha in GA]

If you're talking about the Geometry by Jurgensen et. al. and the Structure and Method Book 2 for the Algebra 2, I've used these for two of my children so far and highly recommend them.

 

Martha

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

sigh...not the Jurgensen one, the authors are a different set: Larson, Boswell, Kandold and Stiff

[mathwonk]

For what is worth. I searched the Jurgensen et al book on amazon and could see only a few pages. I liked the fact it began with a GAME! yes! and although easy, it was a clever and geometrically significant game, thus making it interesting and fun. It was also written intelligently ("different from" , not "different than").

 

It seems from a tiny sample that this is a well written book that follows the usual format for school geometry today, i.e. the line is apparently introduced as a number line from the beginning. Unfortunately I could not search the hypotheses and axioms used, nor see any theorems.

 

from what little I could see, the logic is also sound, e.g. they introduce the concept of the contrapositive of a statement, and apparently make the point that it is logically equivalent to the original statement.

 

This looks as good as any usually found in schools today. Another standard I like is that of HAROLD JACOBS.

 

The other shoe: treatments like this one (and Jacobs') assume students know what "numbers" are before doing geometry. Indeed there is a one - one correspondence between "real" numbers and points on a euclidean line which also has two other properties which may or may not be mentioned in geometry books, namely the axioms of archimedes and of dedekind.

 

archimedes' axiom says that any finite segment on a line can be laid off enough times staring from any initial point, to reach any second point. This is implied by the fact that any real number is smaller than some integer. this is not needed in euclidean geometry until his theory of similarity and can be dispensed with even there.

 

dedekind's axiom is a converse to a "separation" property. I.e. just as removing any point on the line separates the line into two open intervals, so also a separation of the line into two open intervals cannot be achieved without removing a point. this one is not so obvious and is seldom found in school books. it is in fact never needed in euclidean geometry, but is used in some treatments tom prove that a line passing through a point interior to a circle must also meet the circumference of that circle. This fact is usually assumed tacitly in school books.

 

the point is that if real numbers are not even described first, and in rigorous detail, how can they be used as a foundation for geometry? and if geometry is not done first without the crutch of real numbers, then how can geometry be used later to motivate a deep discussion of real numbers?

 

for this reason I myself like euclid's original treatment of geometry, which is the foundation of all later mathematics in the western world. (in China there was a parallel tradition of using the "nine chapters" and the commentaries by Liu Hui.)

 

So, admittedly without a thorough review of the book, my response is yes it looks like a good book, much better than average. however there is more to geometry than apparently appears there.

 

Remark: at first I was worried because this publisher is also responsible for some of the worst "integrated" math books I have ever seen, that were foisted upon some of our local school districts in the last few years. But this book seems very different.

 

I am a retired college geometry professor who bought Harold Jacobs' books for my gifted kids. I now prefer Euclid and Euler.

Edited June 13, 2012 by mathwonk

[nellecv]

I have the Lawson, Boswell, & Stiff one. I use it with some of my tutoring students. I think it's pretty thorough. I like that each chapter begins with an "Are You Ready for this Chapter?" section that reviews the background skills and information a student needs. This can help identify if you need to go back and fill in holes before teaching the new concept. There are lots of different types of questions and real-world applications throughout. The only thing I didn't love is the companion website. Other publishers have much more useful online support resources, IMO.

[Firefly]

I tutored a student this year using the ML Algebra book and thought it was horrible. They provided very basic examples in the lesson, but the practice/review problems were much more complicated and involved. There was a huge gap there that was difficult to reconcile. I see someone up thread uses it and likes it though, so YMMV.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Thanks all.

I am sitting down with the two books this week end and working through a few chapters to see is "I" can understand it. That was the problem with the 2 books I already owned, the actual lessons and what they were asking was riddled with typos and inconsistencies along with to many assumptions and no review. I know math, this is one thing I can be sure of and these books had me going :confused:.

Maybe in August when the center opens I might be able to find the Jurgensen books. There is usually several texts for each subject.