Shormann Algebra 1?

[SnMomof7]

This looks intriguing. Higher math is still over my head, but do any mathy parents have thoughts to share?

 

http://www.diveintomath.com/elearning-course-for-shormann-algebra-1-with-integrated-geometry/

[kiana]

Here's Shormann's website. http://drshormann.com/

 

It seems to be quite new so you are likely not going to find anyone who's used it. 

 

I would not use it myself because I really do not want religion intermingled with math. Here is an example showing something that I would find problematic: https://drshormann.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screen-shot-2014-08-18-at-9-50-01-am.png-- problem 18 in the reading material for lesson 76 is another such. Therefore I'm going to stick to discussing the mathematical instruction. 

 

I very much like what he says about proofs and about historical foundations of mathematics. I like how it's integrated. It seems to be somewhat based off Saxon's ideas, with his own added in. I like the automated homework grading, although I am quite curious as to how he integrates proofs into this. I do not think proofs should be graded automatically, as there are frequently many valid answers. 

 

I question whether the average student will really be prepared for calculus in 3 years. It may be biting off a little much. The course is self-paced but is still limited to a calendar year, which would make me hesitant to give it a shot with a struggling student.

 

I looked at the reading material for Lesson 1 but quite honestly there is so much religion intermingled I'm not going to discuss it. 

 

I looked at the reading material for Lesson 51 and also watched the video. He says he is teaching them to factor trinomials of the form ax^2 + bx + c, but everything deals with only trinomials of the form x^2 + bx + c. Furthermore, the answer is simply presented and then checked to show that the answer is correct. This is a shortcut and only works when x^2 has no coefficient. I have taught this frequently and one of the issues my students have is that although they are able to correctly do problems of the form x^2 + bx + c, they cannot do them when they have a coefficient on the x^2. For example, they will tell me that 6x^2 + 5x + 1 factors as (x+2)(x+3) because they do not want to do the algorithmic steps necessary when x^2 has a coefficient. I teach developmental mathematics at a university, so although I teach them the algorithm, they revert to how they learned it previously, which apparently involved this shortcut. I really don't like presentations that skip directly to a shortcut rather than presenting the entire algorithm and allowing students to discover the shortcut on their own. 

 

I looked at the reading material for Lesson 76 but did not watch the entire video. He does present the zero-factor property at the beginning of the lesson, but when he asks "Why is the standard form of the quadratic equation when f(x) = 0?" he does not discuss the zero-factor property directly, but merely mentions that they are easier to solve here. The biggest reason for this to be the standard form is that we can then apply the zero-factor property to solve it. He does discuss it in the lesson solutions. I don't really care for the way he skips directly to the answers without showing the step of setting each side equal to 0. I don't consider this appropriate for students who are just learning how to solve quadratics which can be factored. They tend to lose sight of what they are really doing and just go for "magic answers". I also don't like how he mentions that quadratic equations have at most two solutions and then directly afterwards shows a cubic with three solutions, without mentioning explicitly that the reason this can have more than two solutions is because it is degree three. Again, he has not explicitly set each factor to 0. Many students attempt to work a problem like this and forget about the x=0 solution, because they are not thinking of 'setting each factor to 0'. This also causes issues later on when a problem is presented such as (x-3)(x-1) = 1, because they forget about the zero-factor property and either claim that the solutions are 1 and 3, or set each factor to 1, neither of which results in a valid solution.

 

I like the variety of his word problems a lot.

 

Summary: Writing a math book is very challenging and I think this is a commendable effort. There are a lot of things I do like. Since I'm confident in my own ability to supplement instruction, if I were looking for a very religiously-oriented YEC-based mathematics curriculum I might give it a shot. But for a non-mathy parent I think I'd look for a book where all the steps are shown directly, at least at early instructional stages. 

[kiana]

Here is an example of what I mean by showing all the steps in instruction: http://www.aplusses.com/sample/AlgIICh1.pdf

 

Look at example 1. See how at each step, she is showing what she is doing to both sides of the equation?

Look at example 2. See how she references the distributive property prior to using it? 

 

Furthermore, see how she emphasizes throughout that she is showing one of many possible ways to do the problem, and points out pitfalls at the end of the problem (cancelling the 2s) and mentions we will discuss more about this in chapter 12?

[SnMomof7]

Thank you for the evaluation! I struggled mightily with high school math when I went through, so I am pretty in the dark when it comes to evaluating the math components. The worldview/history focus is why it seems appealing.

 

My main feeling of concern came from how many math topics they are attempting to integrate in a short period of time (only 100 lessons). I thought it might be too fast for us.

[Guest dshormann]

Hi Jennifer, FYI there's a teacher's guide on the diveintomath.com website that includes statistics on former student performance in Shormann Algebra 1. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b0tUdbjlLMgCqRijV69ubtH4i5QzqzvBlRCsXgD1eZY/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Mom22ns]

Dr. Shoremann has been doing DIVE DVDs to go with Saxon math for years. You could look at reviews of DIVE math to get more feedback on his teaching in general. That said, in the creation of his own program, he may do things quite differently.

 

We've used his DIVE DVDs for science. We find him boring, but the teaching is clear and his expectations are easy to follow. He also seems to be a really nice guy. He is very responsive to questions and will answer questions from students quickly. His stuff is quite heavily Christian as Kiana pointed out.