Contact: Dan Dempsey at dempsey_dan@yahoo.com .......
The Math Underground is part of a national coalition, originated by NYC HOLD. .. a coalition of groups of citizens NOT vested in continually reinventing the wheel in order to justify our own existence, jobs or expertise. ........ Check the Blog list for Seattle Math Group.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge by Rhoads Has anyone used this??
I am looking for information on the Textbook Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge by Rhoads from McDougal Littel now part of Houghton-Mifflin
Tom McDougal used to work for McDougal and he writes an article claiming Serra's book is a disaster? Furthermore, he thinks Rhoads' textbook, published by McDougal, is head and shoulders above Serra? The Rhoads textbook is okay - I don't think it would work any better with low achieving students than Serra's text. The elementary programs are so crappy in the US that students are challenged to get through algebra. Seriously, how many students do you think are going to take a class like geometry after going through all the hoops just to pass algebra. Serra's text does very little with proofs at the beginning - that's why he calls it inductive.
Rhoads textbook does more with proofs in the beginning, but most kids that fail, usually fail because they can't learn to do proofs and the reason is the textbooks are not clear or the teacher is inconsistent. I think Serra is correct, writing proofs should not be a prerequisite to learning geometry. McDougal is wrong.
I agree that Geometry should be about geometry and not confined to proofs.
That said I think that clear example based instruction is a component of a good textbook. It takes more than that but without clear examples a text is defective.
Proofs are only a small component of Geometric understanding.
Serra's problems are better. I've experimented with both textbooks. Particularly, second semester when kids are working with chord theorems. I went over to Serra's methods completely. It's approach to geometry parallels Hewitt's reasons for writing conceptual physics. I don't know why McDougal is wasting his breath.
Sorry if this gets posted twice. I think I did something wrong the first time. So I'll rephrase what I thought was posted the first time and add something else while I'm at it...
-----------
I'm retired now, but the high school where I taught has been using "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" since 1993(?) for our non-honors geometry classes. (That's right, 15 years!) I found the text very satisfactory and I heard nothing negative from the other teachers using it.
Interesting story: In 2000, we were due to get new geometry books. "Geometry, Tools for a Changing World" (GT4CC) was being considered to replace "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge". I reviewed GT4CC and found it horrendous!
Fortunately, I went to:
www.mathematicallycorrect.com
and found an in-depth review, chapter by chapter, for GT4CC. The author of that review must have been on a mission! It convincingly confirmed my negative review. I show that review to my department head and administration. They were convinced too. Curiously, that website didn't have a review for "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" at that time.
Bottom line: I emailed the publisher and requested a copy of the newer edition of "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" (the newer edition had a few changes.) and we readopted it.
I strongly suggest you look at that website for textbook reviews and other things.
This book isnt that great. As a student when trying to learn from this book I've had problems understanding the text of this. The book also focused on proofs and most of my class did bad first semester. If you student pay attention in class sure you could use it, but if they dont they wont understand it probably.
I am now using this book in my Honors Geometry class, and I quite like the way that the information is presented. I have learned a lot from this book, though it may be that I have an amazing teacher. I think with any textbook what the student learns from it depends on how good the teacher is at explaining the material. If at the end of class the student feels confused about what they just learned, it isn't the textbook's fault.
My school thought about replacing this book with a newer textbook, but the idea was shot down because the entire math department found it more than sastifactory. They have been using this book for 15+ years and are not going to replace it in the foreseeable future, in fact they just got a new shipment of books in to replace the old, tattered ones that have been around since the beginning of time!
I have to do proofs in honors geometry which takes a while. I also noticed that proofs are a main component of what we do as we go through the 1st and 2nd quarter
I am taking geometry now in 9th grade, and I have to say that without proofs, I might've failed.
I love McDougal's book for this. After learning the proofs, the number problems are SO much easier. And, its easier to remember that certain angles, sides, or triangles are congruent with the knowledge of the proofs.
My son is using this book in Geometry honors class. But this book does not have extra practice problem. Can someone tell me what other book will be helpful for him to practice for the class test?
Tom McDougal used to work for McDougal and he writes an article claiming Serra's book is a disaster? Furthermore, he thinks Rhoads' textbook, published by McDougal, is head and shoulders above Serra? The Rhoads textbook is okay - I don't think it would work any better with low achieving students than Serra's text. The elementary programs are so crappy in the US that students are challenged to get through algebra. Seriously, how many students do you think are going to take a class like geometry after going through all the hoops just to pass algebra. Serra's text does very little with proofs at the beginning - that's why he calls it inductive.
ReplyDeleteRhoads textbook does more with proofs in the beginning, but most kids that fail, usually fail because they can't learn to do proofs and the reason is the textbooks are not clear or the teacher is inconsistent. I think Serra is correct, writing proofs should not be a prerequisite to learning geometry. McDougal is wrong.
I agree that Geometry should be about geometry and not confined to proofs.
ReplyDeleteThat said I think that clear example based instruction is a component of a good textbook. It takes more than that but without clear examples a text is defective.
Proofs are only a small component of Geometric understanding.
Serra's problems are better. I've experimented with both textbooks. Particularly, second semester when kids are working with chord theorems. I went over to Serra's methods completely. It's approach to geometry parallels Hewitt's reasons for writing conceptual physics. I don't know why McDougal is wasting his breath.
ReplyDeleteSorry if this gets posted twice. I think I did something wrong the first time. So I'll rephrase what I thought was posted the first time and add something else while I'm at it...
ReplyDelete-----------
I'm retired now, but the high school where I taught has been using "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" since 1993(?) for our non-honors geometry classes. (That's right, 15 years!) I found the text very satisfactory and I heard nothing negative from the other teachers using it.
Interesting story: In 2000, we were due to get new geometry books. "Geometry, Tools for a Changing World" (GT4CC) was being considered to replace "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge". I reviewed GT4CC and found it horrendous!
Fortunately, I went to:
www.mathematicallycorrect.com
and found an in-depth review, chapter by chapter, for GT4CC. The author of that review must have been on a mission! It convincingly confirmed my negative review. I show that review to my department head and administration. They were convinced too. Curiously, that website didn't have a review for "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" at that time.
Bottom line: I emailed the publisher and requested a copy of the newer edition of "Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge" (the newer edition had a few changes.) and we readopted it.
I strongly suggest you look at that website for textbook reviews and other things.
This book isnt that great. As a student when trying to learn from this book I've had problems understanding the text of this. The book also focused on proofs and most of my class did bad first semester. If you student pay attention in class sure you could use it, but if they dont they wont understand it probably.
ReplyDeleteI am now using this book in my Honors Geometry class, and I quite like the way that the information is presented. I have learned a lot from this book, though it may be that I have an amazing teacher. I think with any textbook what the student learns from it depends on how good the teacher is at explaining the material. If at the end of class the student feels confused about what they just learned, it isn't the textbook's fault.
ReplyDeleteMy school thought about replacing this book with a newer textbook, but the idea was shot down because the entire math department found it more than sastifactory. They have been using this book for 15+ years and are not going to replace it in the foreseeable future, in fact they just got a new shipment of books in to replace the old, tattered ones that have been around since the beginning of time!
I have to do proofs in honors geometry which takes a while. I also noticed that proofs are a main component of what we do as we go through the 1st and 2nd quarter
ReplyDeleteI am taking geometry now in 9th grade, and I have to say that without proofs, I might've failed.
ReplyDeleteI love McDougal's book for this. After learning the proofs, the number problems are SO much easier. And, its easier to remember that certain angles, sides, or triangles are congruent with the knowledge of the proofs.
My son is using this book in Geometry honors class. But this book does not have extra practice problem.
ReplyDeleteCan someone tell me what other book will be helpful
for him to practice for the class test?