Tom McDougal (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : In article <Pine.3.89.9503161947.A5445email@example.com> : Art Mabbott, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: : >I cannot more strongly : >recommend Michael Serra's Discovering Geometry - An Inductive Approach. : >It is an incredible text. In my opinion, it is the best thing since : >sliced bread.
I feel that this is an outstanding Geometry book, and the fact that it has no glossary or complete references in the book are beside the point. These resources are available with the Teacher's Guides and can be shared with any student who has not made his own. True, it is not the way I learned Geometry, but I don't remember ever really understanding a two-column proof in high school anyway. And I missed many things in my Geometry class in high school (most notably the formula for the area of a regular polygon).
As a bridge to Algebra II, however, the book is terrible. There is not enough Algebra in it, not enough work with coordinate planes. The investigative and problem-solving aspects of mathematics are well-excercised, but the students' symbol-manipulation muscles get weak, and they don't remember how to factor polynomials, and even their facility with signed numbers suffers. I wonder, as have other posters, if there is much need for a year-long geometry course, and I am asking if anyone out there has ever taught from an integrated curriculum that did NOT include a seperate Geometry; one such as Saxon publishes (which is the only one I've personally seen), there must be others. Are the students who've not had Geometry at a disadvantage when they get to Calculus or even up to Algebra II ? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= One World One Operating System ! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-