Sometimes Jacobs Algebra just blows my mind

[RootAnn]

I'm using Jacobs Algebra for my non-mathy dd#2. It introduces some things so early and then spirals back to them later to fold them into the canon of math instruction. I boggle when I see some of these things so early on in the year (like quadradic graphs  :ohmy: ). We just got to the chapter where we're multiplying polynomials and now we're doing long division of polynomials.  :scared:

 

The picture methods are so intuitive that DD#2 is (slowly) getting it, but wow. Crazy.

 

I have a Dolciani Algebra 1 book and the sequence is so completely different. I think I picked the right book for this kid, but WOW. I'm just amazed at how he teaches the stuff he teaches in the order he teaches them.

[Zoo Keeper]

*I* really love Jacobs.  I worked through most of it on my own last summer and had so many light bulb moments.

 

Unfortunately, my non mathy algebra hating son did not speak Jacobs' language at all.  And he hated having to use me as a translator. ;)   So Jacobs is on the shelf, waiting for another kid.

 

I wish that Jacobs had been my algebra teacher in high school--I could have seen beauty in math, I think. 

 

Oh well--I get to see it now. :)

[Farrar]

I ended up switching my kid who was doing Dolciani over to Jacobs because I like the sequence and the style so much better. He's in that chapter on polynomials now. He had already done most of that stuff in Dolciani already, but Dolciani doesn't have anything like the division with polynomials. And the way factoring polynomials was taught in Dolciani was just completely lacking, IMHO. Also simultaneous equations in Dolciani was just confusing for this kid - that I got, but oy, he simply couldn't. Jacobs does it so much better.

[Meriwether]

I like Jacobs Algebra a lot. I'm looking forward to Ds11 doing it next year, because I think he will like it, too.

[RootAnn]

If I was working through it on my own, I'd miss so much of the teaching. Since I am modeling how to learn from a math book, I'm going through everything with her. Sometimes, I don't get where he's going or I don't get how he's doing something. (I want to just teach her *my* way.) Then, it becomes clear.

 

There is just no way my artistic math-hating DD could do it on her own. She's going to do another pass through Algebra (with the Dolciani) to make sure she's got some of the things that are still not clicking enough to make her solid for Alg 2, but the method Jacobs uses is really good for her visual-spacial mind. It is so different than what I've always seen.

[Caliburn]

What type of learner do you all think is well suited for Jacobs Algebra?  Thanks!

[4ofus]

I am on my 2nd kid with Jacobs and our solutions manual is falling apart :). I have 2 different kinds of learners but both have been successful with Jacobs. I recommend it to everyone that asks! Our state standards include some light statistics topics in Algebra 1 & those are not in our book, so we tack on a week or so at the end of the year & hit those topics on Kahn. It works very well.

[Farrar]

7 hours ago, Caliburn said:

What type of learner do you all think is well suited for Jacobs Algebra?  Thanks!

The approach is very discovery based. The problem sets lead to a deeper understanding. However, both my boys are doing really well with it and on track to finish this year and they're radically different in their math approach, so it really may be good for a wide variety of learners. One of my boys always does well with discovery based math and I knew it would be right for him. But the other is usually better with a more "just get it done" approach, yet it has worked much better for him than the one I originally chose.

I did have a conversation about Jacobs recently with someone who said she'd seen it recommended a lot for math-phobic kids and was worried it wasn't rigorous enough. I think it's especially good for kids who like puzzles and are a bit mathy and I think it's good for kids who are decent at math, but don't like it, just because it's a little different in its approach and the way the math is applied at the start in every lesson is often a good hook - both for mathy kids and for more humanities leaning kids. I don't think it would be a good fit for kids who are struggling learners, just because he does throw these little puzzles and discovery things in there and it does seem to cover some topics that algebra I doesn't always get to. So... maybe good potentially for all math students who aren't struggling learners with math?

[mamaraby]

What about the most recent printing? I assume itks basically the same as the vintage ones. The publisher is Christian, but is it otherwise secular? I can buy the vintage ones used on Amazon, but I’d like the solutions manual and those aren’t quite as readily available.

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, mamaraby said:

What about the most recent printing? I assume itks basically the same as the vintage ones. The publisher is Christian, but is it otherwise secular? I can buy the vintage ones used on Amazon, but I’d like the solutions manual and those aren’t quite as readily available.

There was a thread about this... apparently the publisher inserted some Bible quotes and so forth, but most people said it was mostly the same. I can't remember if you could use the solutions guide with the vintage edition or not... I think so though? I have to say... I have needed the teacher guide with the answers, but some people don't - all the Set II exercise answers are in the back. And I haven't needed the solutions guide. Maybe two or three times I've wanted to see a solution written out, but not often. And once I wanted to see a solution and he had a note about it in with the answers, which he does every once in awhile.

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, mamaraby said:

What about the most recent printing? I assume itks basically the same as the vintage ones. The publisher is Christian, but is it otherwise secular? I can buy the vintage ones used on Amazon, but I’d like the solutions manual and those aren’t quite as readily available.

Quoting you again so you can see... I didn't think it was that far back, so I went and looked:

 

[mamaraby]

6 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Quoting you again so you can see... I didn't think it was that far back, so I went and looked:

 

I appreciate that! :D

[RootAnn]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

So... maybe good potentially for all math students who aren't struggling learners with math?

... Which is funny because the one I'm using it with is a HUGE math struggler. I go through the teaching part of the lesson with her & sit with her as she goes through Set II. If she needs more, she does some or all of Set III problems (which are not in the new text, BTW. They are in one of the extra teacher-ish books - whichever one has the tests in it also has the Set III problems). She still struggles with the story problems that come up in Set I, but she's really rocked Chapters 8-9. We're on Ch 10 now and the visual way Jacobs teaches speaks to her artsy, visual mind.

[cintinative]

You all are making me question my choice of Dolciani for my kids. Ugh.  

My youngest is so good with the visual-spacial and they both love logic puzzles.  Maybe I could pick up a copy of Jacobs and pull stuff from it? 

[Farrar]

Dolciani did not work out for us. We really liked the Pre-Algebra, but the layout of topics for the algebra was just difficult for us. But others love it. I'm sure it depends. The biggest weakness in Jacobs is the  biggest strength in Dolciani - the word problems.

It would be very easy to pull the puzzly and tricky problems from Jacobs because they're all the Set IV problems. There's usually just between 1-3 problems in Set IV. It aligns to the topic of the lesson. You could also use the intro text to each lesson as a little enrichment reading about an application of the math. Dolciani never discusses the math - the text just dives in with examples.

[cintinative]

7 hours ago, Farrar said:

Dolciani did not work out for us. We really liked the Pre-Algebra, but the layout of topics for the algebra was just difficult for us. But others love it. I'm sure it depends. 

Farrar, did you use Math in Focus for the lower grades?  Dolciani will be our first introduction to non-primary math so to speak. I thought I remembered you using MIF or maybe just Singapore??

[RootAnn]

8 hours ago, cintinative said:

You all are making me question my choice of Dolciani for my kids. Ugh.  

My youngest is so good with the visual-spacial and they both love logic puzzles.  Maybe I could pick up a copy of Jacobs and pull stuff from it? 

I have Dolciani for dd#3. FWIW, I usually don't do Set IV with my non-mathy kid. When I have, I end up explaining the whole thing and it only served to yield me more algebra short stories* and not more understanding.

* This is my artsy/writer child. There are several short stories in her math notebook about what happens when you introduce your child to Algebra. They don't end well. The stories haven't appeared since Ch 5 or 6 . . .

[Farrar]

3 hours ago, cintinative said:

Farrar, did you use Math in Focus for the lower grades?  Dolciani will be our first introduction to non-primary math so to speak. I thought I remembered you using MIF or maybe just Singapore??

So, my twins took very different math paths, but somehow both ended up on Jacobs Algebra this year.

Mushroom did... Miquon, then what there was of Beast Academy at the time, a bunch of random different things like Key to Fractions and Decimals, Jousting Armadillos, and then finally Jacobs this year.

BalletBoy did... Math Mammoth through the end of grade 4 and then he floundered for a year in which nothing seemed to be working. We did do nearly a year's worth of MiF in there, but it was not right for him. He ended up finishing elementary math with MEP, then he did Dolciani's Pre-Algebra, which was great. And then he did the first half of Dolciani's Algebra, which was a flop, so I moved him to Jacobs and accelerated him through the chapters that he had basically covered in Dolciani.

It's hilarious to me that they haven't done the same math since kindergarten and now, somehow, they're totally going to end up finishing Jacobs's Elementary Algebra at the same time right before high school. Ha.

[melmichigan]

We did the opposite.  We started with Jacobs, and switched to Dolciani.  My twins just couldn't wrap their heads around all the words in Jacobs.  What works for one student, doesn't always work for another.  ;)

[RootAnn]

28 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

We did the opposite.  We started with Jacobs, and switched to Dolciani.  My twins just couldn't wrap their heads around all the words in Jacobs.  What works for one student, doesn't always work for another.  ;)

Absolutely! That's why I'm glad there are so many different products out there. For example, I used Jurgensen geometry with my first kid, but there is no way that will work with my second. So, I'll try something else with her when she gets to that point. AoPS, for example, is great for some kids, but I just don't see it flying at all with any of mine...

[Farrar]

Yes to the multiple options! I was pretty surprised that Jacobs worked for such different math kids as mine. But I have no doubt that's partly because it works for me as a teacher and that there are probably many kids it's not right for at all.