nobeatenpath Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Okay, this is a genuine question, not trying to be fighty. Reading the boards here there seems to be a huge emphasis on starting history early and consistenly, yet very often science is left until much later, and then often it is mainly 'living books' and the like until highschool. Why is this? I am a history lover - my undergraduate degree has a double major in history, I read historical fiction and non-fiction for fun, I follow quite closely a few specialist historical developments - yet I don't find it as important for my son to have lots of formal learning in that area but I do in science. Mainly because in my experience it is much easier to pick up history later - whether that is as a highschooler, or adult - and get yoru head around the concepts, learn through personal reading etc. than it is with science. I mean I took out my highschools Junior Highschool science prize then didn't do science after that (stupid act of rebellion) and find it hard now to do anything above that level. I also know many people who didn't do a lot of science at school and find it hard to understand now as adults. My husband, an engineer who didn't do any history at school and didn't have much of an interest in any history other than WWII before meeting me, has over the years come to have a decent understanding purely through reading and travel. We do history at the moment as part of our curriculum, but it is not nearly as rigorous as the study of science. And I would have a lot more of a problem if my son said tomorrow 'no more science' than if he did 'no more history'. So - englighten me :) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Um. I don't know of very many people who don't do science in the younger grades. We did tons of nature study and experiments etc. But it is true that elementary science is really about learning vocabulary and concepts. You don't really get into the finer ponits of science until high school for developmental reasons because that is when you have the critical thinking necessary to take the vocabulary and concepts and really build on them. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I would say it is because history can be approached as a story, which children can readily understand. Science is far more difficult to make accessible to children. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 STEM vs. Humanities? I will say that I have read these boards for a long time, and I have not come away with the impression that the OP has. I am suddenly left wondering if this is a personal, parent-driven approach to favor one over the other, if that is happening, depending on the leaning of the parents' aptitudes and interests. I am a pretty solid Humanities gal, but I do enjoy a good Biology course. :) The first couple of years we homeschooled, I was bad at doing the hands on science experiments so we mostly skipped them. I read science books aloud just as I read history books aloud. I think that my kids have, at this stage of the game, received about an equal education in science and history. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sahamamama Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Reading the boards here there seems to be a huge emphasis on starting history early and consistenly, yet very often science is left until much later, and then often it is mainly 'living books' and the like until highschool. Why is this? I think the key words might be "the boards here" -- these boards are the WTM boards, and that book organized much of the early elementary scope and sequence around an emphasis on starting history early and consistently. The first edition, at least, has at times been seen as lacking somewhat in science for the younger grades. So perhaps, since these are the WTM boards, this place attracts those who have an investment in that book and that system, and are possibly investing more heavily in early history, as opposed to early science? That's my hypothesis, LOL. Having said that, I don't think I see what you see. :confused1: This place (IMO) is full of homeschoolers who take all sorts of approaches, to all sorts of things. When I need to shop for new ideas, I come here! :laugh: FWIW, we have never done either History or Science according to the book, but the book has been a good guide for us, anyway. And the boards are a gold mine! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I guess it depends on whom you are reading posts by, or whether questions about that have been asked. We began science a couple of years before we began history, though neither was probably what you are calling "formal" learning until.... Well, what do you mean by formal learning? I think possibly they are still not what you may be calling "formal" learning. This year, (7/8 grade) science is a required subject while history is part of the unschool aspect of our home school--which means that science will definitely be done, while history may or may not be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarabellesmom Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I'd pick science over history any day. That said, we try to do both. Both of my children really enjoy reading about science and especially enjoy anything hands on. That said, science has been the bane of my homeschool so far. We haven't found anything that we absolutely love. We've dabbled in quite a few things. This year my oldest is taking an online science class and my youngest and I are trying out BookShark science. I try to get history done too, but I'm not as disciplined. My oldest and I made it through SOTW 1, 2 and half of three before calling that quits. She enjoys a good history documentary and kind of unschools herself that way. My youngest hated SOTW and I have just picked up a variety of books on ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece to see if I can spark an interest that way. All that to say, we are definitely working on history and science, but we always come closer to getting our science done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom22ns Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 We have never prioritized history over science. In fact I would say we did quite the opposite. Since these are the WTM boards, history and particularly SOTW may get a bit more discussion. SOTW makes history very accessible to children. We loved SL when we first started homeschooling and loved using historical fiction along with a spine to get a child friendly view of history. That said, at the same time, we studied a wide range of science topics in elementary with lots of experiments and hands on learning. My kids really loved it. In our house, science ramps up in Jr High studying Life Science in 7th and Physical Science (using a high school text) in 8th so the kids are ready to hit the ground running in high school. I've been around these boards for close to 10 years now and have not seen a preference for history over science, although there are certainly individual families that lean each direction. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Some people wait for more maturity, some formal logic, and some more math before emphasizing science. History, as stated up thread, can be approached as a story in the earlier ages. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Some people wait for more maturity, some formal logic, and some more math before emphasizing science. History, as stated up thread, can be approached as a story in the earlier ages. Yes, the math is why more formal science isn't taught formally even in public or private schools until later. What is done prior to that is just introduction to scientific ideas, nomenclature and in a small amount procedure. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 We read both science and history every single day. But, we don't use history textbooks either. We read books like Landmark, Signature, etc. I am curious as to why you think living books/whole books are not science books? Are textbooks the only source of factual, scientific information? This is the book I am currently doing with my 4th grade: http://eeinwisconsin.org/resource/about.aspx?s=91264.0.0.2209(apparently the WI Environmental Education Foundation finds it a good book. ;) ) Fwiw, my experience is that my kids have all been well-equipped for higher level sciences. I have 2in solidly STEM fields: chemE and physics. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purduemeche Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 With our younger children we always prioritize history over science. The caveat is that I am referring to formal instruction. History can and should be taught early and often as a part of the classical methodology and is frankly required to pass on western civilization to my children (which I consider to be an aim of classical education, as opposed to progressive or pragmatic education that is so rampant in the school system). We do very little science with younger children, simply because the scientific method is beyond the grasp of most grammar stage children. Science at this stage should focus on nature walks and generally installing a love of nature and creation. This doesn't really take a curriculum (and there aren't many that fit the bill, anyway). Hence, I never ask questions about it on the board :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wintermom Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'd say that the perception could likely be that this particular homeschool forum draws people interested in a particular approach and/or particular books that are based on history. In addition, science curriculum, moreso than The Story of the World and math curriculum, tends to see more division between various religious and non-religious followers. From my own experience with a number of threads, posts about science curriculum questions and recommendations can very quickly get nasty. I have noticed that there seem to be fewer threads about science than any other subject. People don't necessarily want to get into a debate about why they want a particular worldview supportive science curriculum, so they may go to a different forum to ask science curriculum questions. This is just my own personal perception. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I don't see that. I think history lends itself to a more uniform approach which more people can adopt. If there are some sub-groups not doing science, they are in a minority, but most people are looking for how to make history accessible. I also think early-elementary science is fun and doesn't require as much coaching. Baking soda rockets! Paper airplanes! Rocks! It's all about exploration which kids naturally do, at least a lot of them. Winter mom may also be on to something regarding debate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I find both as important, and since I don't know enough of both (I did learn a lot of science when younger, but can't remember a whole lot) I try very hard to cover them. Unschooling doesn't work for me at all, in any subject...I'm a textbook/workbook gal...we try to follow a plan for both subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I didn't ask any questions re. science curricula until middle school and high school. Most elementary texts are fairly similar even if they have differences in worldview in some cases or in order of how they approach things. It was easy to look at my choices (including things I could just get from the library) and choose what worked for us. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maela Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I feel like I see way more posts about history than science here, but this is TWTM forum. I think we do both science and history equally, but very informally. Lots of reading, watching documentaries, discussions, and experiments. Dh especially loves to answer the kids' science and history questions. Why things are the way they are... Both science and history explain a lot of that. My plan is to get more formal about both in sixth grade. I could easily change my mind by then though. :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syllieann Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I don't see the emphasis as history over science on the boards. Many people are content with, and even prefer, a living books approach to history. I don't see anyone going gaga over history textbooks. If there is a tendency to be more unschooly with science, I would say that it's because high school science is all introductory and dictated by the math. There is also the tendency of young children to pepper their parents with questions all day about things they observe. A few from my 4 yo this week: Why does my hair fly forward when I'm swinging back, and backward when I'm swinging forward? Why does it look like my arm is bent when I stick it in water? What is a rainbow made out of? Why are the clouds gray when it's about to rain? Why does water make the floor slippery? I do get peppered with social studies questions too, but again, they are about things that are directly observable or directly impact the child...voting, money, traffic laws, etc. I have never been asked in the midst of daily life about the fall of the Roman Empire, the impact of the Phoenicians, or the reasons for the Great Schism. Otoh, now that I'm writing this out, I suppose it may be that my math/science brain just isn't doing a good job of Socratic discussion when they ask social studies questions. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soror Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 We read both science and history every single day. But, we don't use history textbooks either. We read books like Landmark, Signature, etc. I am curious as to why you think living books/whole books are not science books? Are textbooks the only source of factual, scientific information? This was my first thought, we use living books because we find them superior in depth and content, not because we are trying to weasel out of doing real science. Of course at the elementary level there is only so much we can do with the level of math we have but in my own house if we were to compare history and science side-by-side science gets the most time, I keep trying to even it out but we are just more orientated towards science 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Science is all around. Kids absorb by observing, questioning, reading up, discussing and other means. Kids are inquisitive and science lends itself to many "Why" and "How" when kids observe something in their daily life. For example I had pink mold in my pot. I had only seen bluish gray green mold before so pink is a first. I haven't check out why the mold is pink. While current affairs is all around us, history isn't. If I did not assign any history readings, DS10 would only read books about pharoahs, mummies and pyramids, as well as the architecture of the aqueducts, pantheon, maya structures. He is interested in the architecture of historical structures but not the history. DS9 is only interested in aeronautical history in terms of the aircraft design and mechanics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobeatenpath Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 Science is all around ...While current affairs is all around us, history isn't Going to disagree with you there. Just as kids asking 'how and why' about natural phenomenon, asking the same questions about culture and society lead to discussions about history, often with wide ranging effect. Thanks for so many great answers people. Wintermom I hadn't thought about the political/religious angle, that is something to consider. And apologies for not being clear - I guess I was using 'living books' more to refer to narration than 'non-textbooks'. Even in many of the topics about science I have seen an emphasis on lives of scientists/narrative non-fiction rather than 'straight' nonn-fiction. I guess every household has their different approaches and priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Narrative non -fiction is still factually accurate. We read narrative science as well. Scientists in the Field are narratives about scientists lives. :) My kids love them. Fwiw, not teaching science or history like a classroom does not mean it does not have priority. It is simply a different methodology. Based on your posting number (68 is the number I see while typing this post), I assume you are new to the forums? If you stick around, you will find a lot of different people using different methods. Plenty of posters use textbooks. After a while you learn who uses methods similar to your own. You will become aware of the fact that even though there are multitudes of different resources and methods being used, the vast majority of the posters here are very serious about providing their children a thorough, solid education. From my perspective, textbooks are inferior for young children. Why? It isn't a random decision. ;) it isn't just about engaging their interest either. I believe that textbooks pre-digest information into key snippets. I want my kids to read topics in both breadth and depth and learn how to synthesize key points on their own. That is a skill that requires practice. It also exposes them to far greater background understanding than the key fact approach found in most non-high school textbooks. My kids have all loved science (well, my current 11th grader excepted. She doesn't. But it is hard to tease out if she really doesn't like science, or if she really just resents the fact that be she has to take science she doesn't have enough time to add in more foreign languages, her first love. She loved science until she hit 9th grade and wanted to add Arabic as a 4th language and I said no.) Anyway, I digress. The point I wanted to make was that even though my older kids never touched a science textbook until high school level science did not mean they did not possess a solid body of scientific knowledge. My oldest ds took college chemistry for engineers at a local university while still in high school and earned the highest grade in the class. He is now a chemE. My youngest ds took his first textbook based science, alg-based physics, in 8th grade, and graduated from high school,with 11 science credits if you don't count the 8th grade physics class, many of the taken at a local university. He also had the highest or close to the highest grade in every class. He is now majoring in physics with a goal of PhD in physics. He wants to be a particle physicist of some sort. Way beyond my understanding. He spent his 2nd semester of last yr (his freshman year) working for a professor on radon research and this past summer working on Ice Cube neutrino research. My point is that when people talk about reading whole books and not spending time in elementary school on "science experiments" (demonstrations), it does not mean they do not take science education seriously. We take it very seriously. We just take a different approach, one I happen to think is superior, not inferior. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobeatenpath Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 Actually I have read through the forums pretty extensively, just not posted a whole lot :coolgleamA: But I get your point. Oh, and this is definitely more a 'I am curious and wondering if I am missing something' rather than a 'my way is superior and you are all wrong' type of question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GailV Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 In this house, if we didn't do a formal history course it wouldn't get done. There are huge swathes of history that I'm not interested in. The kids probably wouldn't have known these things existed had we not picked a curriculum and stuck to it. Science, on the other hand ... boy-howdy, it happens all day long around here, and it's FUN. When the kids were little it was fairly free range, because, why not? I have a degree in horticulture and am constantly doing stuff with plants -- one dd commented that it was impossible to grow up in this household without absorbing quite a bit of botany. I also like to do things in the kitchen, like ferment foods and dry foods and heat foods different ways (isn't it fascinating how handling foods different ways brings out different flavors?). Plus we have pets, and a sincere interest in animals. And astronomy -- isn't it exciting when you see a news article on it, and don't you want to share it with everyone, and put a reminder on the calendar to go look at the sky? Plus the science section in the library is so bright and colorful -- who wouldn't pick up armfuls of books and tote them home? Overall, I had few questions about how to approach science with young kids ( once I realized that trying to explain the Krebs cycle to a 6 year old probably wasn't the best use of our time). On the other hand, I've needed plenty of input on how to present history since I really wasn't that excited about the subject. So, yeah, I would've been one of those boar dies endlessly discussing history curriculum and rarely mentioning science in the elementary grade years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 spammer who quoted me has been reported Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 There are so many people here with a STEM focus, esp. when you get to the high school boards that I have a hard time believing that large swashes of people do not teach science. Also anecdotally - we are doing two sciences this year (with the same students). One is a more traditional focus on topic and experiments and the other focuses on the scientists. But even the one that focuses on the scientists has us doing experiments and hands on science. And that hasn't just been this year. I remember years ago, reading a book on William Harvey and looking all over town for a heart to dissect (Asian foodstores are your best bet, next to the chicken feet and the duck heads). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well, I think I could to some extent charachterize myself as doing history for younger kids, and science later. But in other ways that is not accurate. As far as history, I would say two things. The first is that I think it is far more important than many people realize. Being a good citizen, understanding the political system, having enough knowledge about other cultures and times to put one's own in perspective - these things depend on a knowledge of history. The second thing is this - history is essentially stories, and children love and respond to good stories, and it is developmentally appropriate for even fairly young children to have stories. What's more, history taught in stories is fully contextual, and it gives context to everything else you will do - science, art, literature, language. The reason I would say it is not totally accurate to say that I don't really teach science is because I do spend a lot of effort on natural history. That is, IMO, the contextual, story, version of science that is appropriate for children. Science is actually an abstraction beyond that, one that is not as developmentally right for younger kids. It is a particular way of thinking about and organizing the content of natural history. It is easy for it to become decontextualized if you have no roots in natural history, and that is not a good thing. Even many of the "experiments" that science programs have kids do are really just things that happen in nature moved to a lab environment. IMO it is better, whenever possible, to notice such things in nature - whether that is the forest or the bathtub - than in a lab environment. And you don't need to go far before it becomes very dependent of mathematics - and so kids who don't have the math won't be able to go there. The advantage to living books is that they keep as much of that context as possible without having the experiences oneself. If you read Fabre, you are not just getting a series of facts about the cicada, you are reading an account of his whole experience in observing insect life. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Going to disagree with you there. Just as kids asking 'how and why' about natural phenomenon, asking the same questions about culture and society lead to discussions about history, often with wide ranging effect. Thanks for so many great answers people. Wintermom I hadn't thought about the political/religious angle, that is something to consider. And apologies for not being clear - I guess I was using 'living books' more to refer to narration than 'non-textbooks'. Even in many of the topics about science I have seen an emphasis on lives of scientists/narrative non-fiction rather than 'straight' nonn-fiction. I guess every household has their different approaches and priorities. Many of us just consider narrative nonfiction to be more engaging for younger students, as well as better written. Using narrative nonfiction means that we can also help kids learn from good writing models while learning content. And, as pointed out, it's not less accurate. Sometimes, it's much more in depth. I think a lot of people aren't even using the term super specifically. An article in a popular science magazine about a scientific discovery is "narrative" in that it tells how the science was discovered and what implications it has for our understanding. But your implication here is that somehow that's not sciencey enough and not "real" nonfiction. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 OP, you're going to have to give some specific examples of the differences between those terms you chose.I don't understand what the difference is between narrative non-fiction and straight non-fiction when we read the writings of Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein to our kids with our living books approach to science. We also included the history of science because science and history have an incredible influence on each other. Then we get into scientific philosophy and epistemology in the high school years. Formal logic, math and science are integrated at that level in our house when it comes time for things like error analysis and statistics. We're not into "cooking class" science where kids follow the directions for experiments and are told what conclusions they should come to. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go_go_gadget Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 In our case, we've done very little formal science because my husband is a physicist-turned-engineer and I'm in grad school for math, so they're surrounded by science. They've spent summers in the physics and astronomy labs, and learned a lot of chemistry along the way. They've been steeped in the scientific method for longer than they can remember, and they've really hit the ceiling on what they can do without the math they haven't taken yet. I need a curriculum for history because it's not my area, but the science happens on its own around here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Twain Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I will be lone poster who agrees with the OP. Yes, history is emphasized far more than science, though one will find more STEM people on this board than on any other homeschool board. Have you ever been to a homeschool convention? How many workshops or talks focus on math or science? Usually they can be counted on one hand. My personal theory is that the vast majority of homeschoolers past and present are liberal arts majors. Lots of them have no background in science and don't feel comfortable teaching math. Therefore the natural areas of focus are history, literature, and writing. Regarding the idea of not being able to teach small children quality science, I strongly disagree with that one as well. BFSU is my proof. FWIW--I am not trying to start an argument, especially since I think folks on this board have a much better balance of liberal arts to math/science than elsewhere. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 It depends on how you define science and how you define quality. Most people on this board anyway, do teach science even if they might do more of an unschooling approach in the younger years. At a younger level most science is exploratory even if it is in book form and is not hands on or if it is more narrative in nature or if it entirely hands on All of that can definitely be quality science. But science can only go so far before you run into the need for math for proving and disproving scientific theories. While of course, there are outliers, there are basic developmental things that have to go on for higher level math that typically do not happen until a child is of middle or senior high age. I have no idea how to evaluate all of homeschooling households in the matter and would be very curious how some of you seem to have an inside track on how they approach certain subjects. As regards TWTM boards perhaps you could undertake a research study where you compare all the STEM related posts (make sure that they include all grades and all mentions of all scientific programs and scientific disciplines including applied science, please) as compared to historical posts (make sure that these too include all grades etc.). You might need to have another category for topics that bridge subjects like a historical study that includes studying the scientific contributions of a certain culture or time period etc. I would be very interested in reading the study when it is done. Oh, and when you do the study please be sure to give credit to homeschoolers when they outsource the study of science as many of them do. This does not mean of course that they are ignoring the teaching of it but rather are making special arrangements for it to be taught accurately and in depth to their students. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jar7709 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Personally, we are a family that lives science, so formal science is unnecessary as a child. They are naturally immersed in it...books, the habits of curiosity and observation, field trips and osmosis. History is something that we are interested in, but have less access to, so our history study is a little more structured. So, I guess if you look at our homeschool with a certain lens, it could appear we've emphasized history over science...but it's just a different approach, really. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Jar7709 - I've tried to like your post but for some reason the computer won't let me. Consider yourself "liked". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Two thoughts come to my mind - 1. We do both science and history in early elementary, but history tends to be a bit more of 'books I selected' along with SOTW and and science comes up in questions we answer or discuss or research as we go along (why is the sky blue, why did the vinegar fizz in the baking, why can the fish breathe underwater, etc). So history might seem more 'official' school-wise. (I'd say that history discussion also does occur in our daily life, so it's not that it is absent otherwise). I'd agree with the PP who guessed that the SOTW/classical approach might also be somewhat history weighted. 2. I treat early science somewhat casually (though I encourage scientific questioning as a life habit) because of a discussion I had with Dr. Jay Wile, who writes popular HS science curricula. He said that he believes the best thing you can do for science study in elementary grades is to develop strong math skills, and that he would focus less on elementary science curricula (and yes, he laughed and said that WAS an odd opinion for an author of elementary science curricula!). The later sciences build heavily on those math skills. So I'm hoping to get solid work done on early math and to expose science in a positive, inquisitive way in the early years. Just my two cents. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lea_lpz Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Most people do both science and history. I think history lends itself more to a unit study approach than science since you can also study art, music, literature and crafts and cooking from the time period. Some families might do less science and some history but the majority will be hitting science regularly enough. For instance we probably do some history daily, but science about 1-2x a week. I sat daily because we probably only read our history text twice a week, but we read historical fiction about 4-5 days a week, geography 1x a week, a weekly history notebook page, and about 4x a week my dd does book basket, where she spends time reading or looking at historical picture books, non fiction history books, easy readers bios, etc for the time period we are reading, and then we do art, music, crafts and cooking on our history unit about 1x per week, so, we are easily spending time on "history" 5 days a week. For science, we'll likely watch a DVD on the topic or Netflix Magic School Bus 1x per week and then another day we might read in a science book a bit on our topic, do an experiment, and then journal page our learnings. Once in a while science will be a field trip and then follow up at home with a journal page. But yep, 2x a week seems plenty for us! Or me at least. My kids probably would love to do experiments every day, but I just can't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lea_lpz Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Two thoughts come to my mind - 1. We do both science and history in early elementary, but history tends to be a bit more of 'books I selected' along with SOTW and and science comes up in questions we answer or discuss or research as we go along (why is the sky blue, why did the vinegar fizz in the baking, why can the fish breathe underwater, etc). So history might seem more 'official' school-wise. (I'd say that history discussion also does occur in our daily life, so it's not that it is absent otherwise). I'd agree with the PP who guessed that the SOTW/classical approach might also be somewhat history weighted. 2. I treat early science somewhat casually (though I encourage scientific questioning as a life habit) because of a discussion I had with Dr. Jay Wile, who writes popular HS science curricula. He said that he believes the best thing you can do for science study in elementary grades is to develop strong math skills, and that he would focus less on elementary science curricula (and yes, he laughed and said that WAS an odd opinion for an author of elementary science curricula!). The later sciences build heavily on those math skills. So I'm hoping to get solid work done on early math and to expose science in a positive, inquisitive way in the early years. Just my two cents. This! Our science is much less formal and planned! I like to be able to address science as it arises in our literature, field trip opportunities or just my kids interests. For instance we are doing a unit study on the American Girls Series Marie-Grace and Cecile. One central theme is a cholera epidemic in 1853 and it's set in New Orleans. We have our science topics ---about 2 weeks on wetland habitats and 4 weeks on disses, epidemics and the human body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adaml1980 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Its always good to check out which subjects we like by trying out online courses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adaml1980 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Try out https://CourseBuffet.comThe place to find all the free online courses in the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I think we are about to see some changes. We now have Story of Western Science, and the new edition of TWEM due in November includes a chapter on reading science books. I am experimenting with doing TWTM science. I have come to the realization that it is sometimes much cheaper to study one science discipline a year, when living in perpetual chaos. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-rap Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Everyone I know always did both history and science, from the very beginning. That said, history tends to be easier to teach since it's like a story, and can be read in biographies, historical fiction, and watched in movies as well. And what child doesn't enjoy learning about mummies and pioneers! But I, for one, wish I had come up with more imaginative ways to really incite excitement toward science in my children. I feel that I kind of failed in that area. In high school, I sent them to public school for science when I could, but honestly, it wasn't any better there. It wasn't until they got to college and took a couple required science courses with some great professors that they began to be really taken with it, but by then they felt it was too late to go that route, career-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Another Lynn Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I definitely emphasize history over science in elementary and make zero apology for it. I personally like history much more than science, which means I am more adept at using it to accomplish various goals. Additionally, I feel that knowing history intimately gives them greater access to more literature and improves their comprehension of numerous cultural references. If they hit middle school with good reading skills, good math skills, and an exposure to common science topics they are in good position to accomplish what is needed for higher level science. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Because the recommendation in WTM is to use history as an organizing principle? So lots of programs started doing that and now lots of people default to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I just think a bunch of parents who chose to homeschool prefer history over science. I actually think you can be pretty unschooly with history AND science during the elementary years and be totally fine. We tended to do field trips, hands on, library books, read alouds, science kits, jr. ranger programs, etc during the elementary years over following a formal curriculum (although we'd listen to SOTW audio books and do the maps at points). My kids test strong in science now at 11 and 14 (we have to test annually). My oldest kid has pretty much zero interest in history so although I think he does fine with it and can talk about eras and important points in history, I don't think he retains it long term. The beauty of homeschooling is it's not one size fits all. ETA - I'm going back and reading posts now. I do agree with the thought that elementary science is creating curiosity and observation about the natural world and maybe introducing concepts and terminology. My son went to an award winning science school for 2 years. Nothing they were doing there was earth shattering. They allowed kids to do more hands on stuff than the average school. I actually think my kids ended up with richer science backing than many kids in B&M schools with our unschooly approach. For example, My kids have about 25 junior ranger program badges from mostly national parks. I was exposed to stuff helping my kids do those programs I've never seen and I did some college level science. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 PS - this summer I did some science with a mix of mostly public schooled kids going up to 6th grade and almost every kid was awestruck by simple science experiments that my kids had done multiple times during elementary school. The kids told me that they had never done experiments like that where they got to actually do it instead of just watching the teacher do a demonstration. The public school teacher I taught with told me that most kids did not do hands on science in her elementary school - no time to do it. Now I realize that our goals and execution of science education does not depend on what they do in public school and I also recognize that there is a huge range of what you can find in elementary schools. But I guess we're not so bad off as homeschoolers if we do what most people in this thread have said that they do. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syllieann Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 PS - this summer I did some science with a mix of mostly public schooled kids going up to 6th grade and almost every kid was awestruck by simple science experiments that my kids had done multiple times during elementary school. The kids told me that they had never done experiments like that where they got to actually do it instead of just watching the teacher do a demonstration. The public school teacher I taught with told me that most kids did not do hands on science in her elementary school - no time to do it. Now I realize that our goals and execution of science education does not depend on what they do in public school and I also recognize that there is a huge range of what you can find in elementary schools. But I guess we're not so bad off as homeschoolers if we do what most people in this thread have said that they do. Are you in Newcastle in the UK or some other Newcastle? Just curious if these are UK or US public school kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Are you in Newcastle in the UK or some other Newcastle? Just curious if these are UK or US public school kids. US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I used to devote as much time to science as to history. Our science was definitely for the wonder of it up to at least age 10, at which time Calvin opted to work on high school science. For history we did SOTW heavily supplemented with not much expectation of retention, again for the wonder of it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEK Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 For us personally I devote a lot more formal school time to history for a variety of reasons; for us it is easier to approach history as a formal subject than informally, there are many great history curricula aimed at the early years, but lastly (and possibly most importantly in this household) we have chosen to approach "history" as a series of interconnected, chronological unit studies covering not only history but also a great deal of science, art, writing, drama, reading, crafts, cooking and so much more. History is the starting point but our "history" lessons cover so much more. Conversely, "science" as a formal study is done 1-2 times a week maximum and is a very minor focus of our formal school time yet we are in no way prioritizing history over science. Science has taken on a life of it's own, it is intertwined throughout our days. It is covered in history, if given free reign my kids will always pick to read a science book in reading time followed of course by discussions on what they have learned, we cover it while playing in the garden, playground or at the beach, while cooking, while building with lego or blocks, we love science documentaries, we are always making structures of some description and testing their design for strength/functionality etc. Our science focus in terms of curriculum and formal school time is minimal however science and STEM learning are covered daily (often for hours!) through more of an unschooling approach in addition to a formal once a week science curricula. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momto4inSoCal Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I wish I was better at teaching science. It's the one area I feel we could use some improvement. Personally I love history and my teaching reflects that. I also love studying cultures, food and understanding other people's views. We will read about a time period, try and do something to connect with that culture (we attended a fall festival at an Indian reservation last year) and we make food common to the culture or time period. It's easy when you love something, not so easy when you don't. My husband is a tech guy though so my kids are exposed to a lot of technologies and thankfully get exposure to that from him. As far as physical science, life science etc. Well we get what subjects apologia puts together :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.