Got off to a bad start with Jacobs' Geometry...

[NJKelli]

Dd14 is frustrated and in tears over Jacobs' Geometry. And, no, it's not proofs.

I was wondering why all her angle measurements were off so I worked through everything myself and still couldn't figure it out. Then I went through everything step by step with her and realized she wasn't using a protractor correctly. She's used on correctly in the past, prior to doing Alg. 1 so it was a mystery...until she told me how someone recently showed her the right way to use a protractor. And guess what? It was the wrong way. So all her work is off for the last couple of days and she's really unhappy.

In lesson 3, she's instructed to make a pyramid. She can't understand why this is necessary. Now she's got to go back and make it again because the angle measurements are off. Tears, tears.

Should we expect more hands on type of projects in Jacobs? This girl just want to get it done. She has excellent spatial reasoning skills but isn't interested in doing the hands-on stuff--at least with math. In other areas she can be very creative and artistic.

I think this girl needs a fresh start. I realize I have had my issues from the start, wondering if this book would suit her, but I've tried to keep an open mind. Now I want to bail, but I'm trying to be reasonable.

[JennW in SoCal]

As I recall from my last time through Jacobs, and in planning to use it this year with my 10th grader, the constructions are mostly in the beginning of the book. After that you get into proofs. In fact, after lesson 6, it moves into a section on logic, then onto proofs. You are almost out of the woods! There were a few problems that bothered me througout the book where there would be a photograph as an example of some geometric design, and it didn't always work -- it wasn't accurate, or didn't seem so to me, so we'd skip it!

If your dd now understands how to correctly use the protractor, I wouldn't have her re-do the problems, but be sure she is using it correctly in the next lesson. The point is to use it correctly and understand angles, not to make every single problme perfect.

Perhaps you can do some of the constructions and show her what the point of the construction is, why they work. Then move ahead. It should be much better for her after this!

[NJKelli]

Thanks for the good news about Jacobs. My Dd says she likes the book and wants to continue with it, just not make things.

I didn't have her go back and redo yesterday's work. Thanks for the confirmation of that decision. However, she did redo the pyramid so she could finish the problem set.

Then I told her to lie down on the couch and to read for history so she could recover from protractor-induced stress.:chillpill:

Thanks for giving me hope about our future with Jacobs.

[Julie in MN]

Then I told her to lie down on the couch and to read for history so she could recover from protractor-induced stress.:chillpill:

:lol:

[EKS]

We gave up on Jacobs (3rd edition) partly for this reason. All those constructions and the pyramid making-type things drove my son nuts (I just found the pyramid he made again the other day). The approach of the book is sort of a minds on (as opposed to hands on) version of this. All of the problems had an element of discovery to them. Anyway, we gave up after (I think) chapter 3 and have since moved on to TT Geometry. I might have my son do some of Jacobs (2nd edition this time) when we're done if he is still iffy on proofs.

The other thing that sent me over the edge with Jacobs was that every time my son had a question I had to go through all the steps up to his question with the problem myself before I could attempt to help him. It would have been better if I had been able to do all the problems myself beforehand, but I don't have time to do that. What's weird is that we both loved Jacobs Algebra. Go figure.

[NJKelli]

The other thing that sent me over the edge with Jacobs was that every time my son had a question I had to go through all the steps up to his question with the problem myself before I could attempt to help him. It would have been better if I had been able to do all the problems myself beforehand, but I don't have time to do that.

That's where I am right now. It would be great if I had the time to work through everything, but it's not realistic.

In a weak moment yesterday, I called the Teaching Textbook customer service number and asked if they have the students make things in Geometry. The person answering the phone couldn't give me an answer, but she called me back in just a few minutes to say that the person who wrote the book told her that students using TT Geometry don't need to make things. They just need the book and a computer. Not bad customer service. :001_smile:

[EKS]

I was worried about using TT because of all the comments on these boards about it being less than rigorous. But I have to say that the geometry book is straightforward and each problem set has proofs. I love the support the videos provide. It's working for us. By the time we had been through three chapters of Jacobs 3ed and two chapters of Jacobs 2ed I was ready for something to be straightforward and to work.

We are on Lesson 47 and there have been no constructions and no making things (though I think a chapter at the end deals with constructions).

[NJKelli]

I was worried about using TT because of all the comments on these boards about it being less than rigorous. But I have to say that the geometry book is straightforward and each problem set has proofs. I love the support the videos provide. It's working for us. By the time we had been through three chapters of Jacobs 3ed and two chapters of Jacobs 2ed I was ready for something to be straightforward and to work.

Straightforward is lookin' pretty good.

[Sharon in MD]

Dd14 is frustrated and in tears over Jacobs' Geometry. And, no, it's not proofs.

I was wondering why all her angle measurements were off ......someone recently showed her the right way to use a protractor. It was the wrong way....

In lesson 3, she's instructed to make a pyramid. She can't understand why this is necessary. Now she's got to go back and make it again because the angle measurements are off. Tears, tears.

Should we expect more hands on type of projects in Jacobs? This girl just want to get it done. She has excellent spatial reasoning skills but isn't interested in doing the hands-on stuff....

I think this girl needs a fresh start. I realize I have had my issues from the start, wondering if this book would suit her, but I've tried to keep an open mind. Now I want to bail, but I'm trying to be reasonable.

Please forgive me if I'm a bit fast here....I'm cooking dinner while playing with WTM...

First point----no, don't make her go back and re-do the pyramid...but I would select some constructions in the future to be sure she knows how to do them.

Regarding using the protractor incorrectly...it is frustrating yes, but also a good thing to catch now. I think there is value in learning how to use the tools of math correctly....it does matter in Physics for example too. And in defense of the Jacobs curricula...this wasn't their fault, but the fault of whoever it was who showed her the wrong way to do it.

As I recall, there are constructions on and off through the text....but it isn't heavily into constructions. There is serious value in constructions, IMO. You must prove that you know how to do "it" in a construction. A student might think they get it, but when you ask them to show you HOW, you find out if they really get it or not. I know she is in tears....but I would be tough and make her show me that she knows it.

I would not make a student do all the constructions, but I would make them do selected ones. It is like discussion in a social sciences course...you have to show that you comprehend the material by discussing it. Constructions and proofs are the discussion of geometry. And that is why they matter.

I think it is an important step in logical cognition....

Hope this helps to keep you from bailing...

[NJKelli]

Regarding using the protractor incorrectly...it is frustrating yes, but also a good thing to catch now. I think there is value in learning how to use the tools of math correctly....it does matter in Physics for example too. And in defense of the Jacobs curricula...this wasn't their fault, but the fault of whoever it was who showed her the wrong way to do it.

As I recall, there are constructions on and off through the text....but it isn't heavily into constructions. There is serious value in constructions, IMO. You must prove that you know how to do "it" in a construction. A student might think they get it, but when you ask them to show you HOW, you find out if they really get it or not. I know she is in tears....but I would be tough and make her show me that she knows it.

I would not make a student do all the constructions, but I would make them do selected ones. It is like discussion in a social sciences course...you have to show that you comprehend the material by discussing it. Constructions and proofs are the discussion of geometry. And that is why they matter.

I think it is an important step in logical cognition....

Hope this helps to keep you from bailing...

Don't worry. I'm not bailing yet. The most important reason for me to have dd stick with it that besides the unfortunate protractor incident she actually like Jacobs and has done very well on all the lessons so far. They take her a bit of time, but everything does, and she hasn't complained.

I'm relying completely on the Kolbe lesson plans that don't have her do all the problems but selections of them in sets 1 and 2. She's also done the set 3 problems as part of the honors portion, and we'll continue that since it seems to be challenging her. I expect they are choosing a good amount of constructions and proofs for her to get the "discussion" she needs. It's better for her that they're choosing and not me because I'm just not knowlegeable enough.

Thanks for bringing up the importance of using tools correctly for future courses. I hadn't thought about that.

Thank you, Sharon, for sharing your thoughts. It helps me put things in perspective.:001_smile:

[Orthodox6]

fwiw. . . My husband has taught both Jacobs geometry (3rd ed.) and TT geometry. He likes both programs. The Jacobs was a good fit for our "math-adept" son, the TT was a good fit for our "math-ok" son.

(I now have a son in outside school, stuck with the brand-new Saxon geometry course. Poor guy, I truly pity him !)

[Sharon in MD]

I've just recently started to work full time and so I don't get to pop over so often. So, I'm glad that I could still help out a bit. I miss hanging around here.

[langfam]

Just some thoughts. Not trying to confuse you. If you email Megan at Kolbe, she can be very helpful with any problems you're having with Jacobs.

If you do decide to switch to TT for Geometry. It may not be as worrisome if I share with you our experience. DD did average on PSAT math section after using Saxon especially on geometry type questions, but her score improved by about 100 points on the SAT after using TT Geometry and CD SAT Math review. She was doing better on the Geometry questions than my son who was continuing to use Saxon. This DD continued with TT Precalculus and placed into Calculus for her college placement test.

I'll have to say that using TT was very easy on me. I don't think I even helped her once.

Having said that, I don't know if TT works for all kids. I have my 10th grader using it this year. He's my non-mathy one, so I don't know...