Actually, proofs are the POINT of the Geometry class ... or, at least, they used to be. Circles, lines and polygons are not the point of the course (heresy alert), but are merely the tools we use to teach deductive reasoning.
> With comments like these, its no wonder most kids > don't understand or > like mathematics. > > The pictures are trying to make connections to the > world for the > students. Teaching "proof" geometry makes no > connections for most > students and thus they don't care nor do they develop > any intellectual > curiosity. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: email@example.com > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of > John Benson > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:53 AM > To: email@example.com; > firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RE: Geometry Textbook for weak students > > > With regard to the comment below, the answer is > obvious. Euclid does not > have enough color photographs of famous athletes, > tall buildings and > other things that are necessary to engage our > student's interest. Just > look at virtually any high school text on the market > and you will see a > ratio of about 2 to 1 math to "motivating stuff". > > > I dont understand why Euclid is not used in schools. > > The textbook that replaces Euclid has yet to be > written. > > > "kashford" <email@example.com> wrote in > message > news:19926173.1125432794452.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen. > mathforum.org... > > I am teaching in a Oakland, CA where resources are > scarce and the math > backgrounds of most students are weak. I am trying > to find a suitable > text or handbook to teach a geometry course without > proofs. >