Jump to content

What's with the ads?


Photo

Science encyclopedias - Kingfisher, Usborne?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 Mommy22alyns

Mommy22alyns

    Matthew 7:6

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9311 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:08 PM

What's your recommendation for a good general science encyclopedia for younger elementary students? Do you prefer Usborne, Kingfisher, or something else? I want something that gives clear explanations yet doesn't talk down - I'm thinking I may want to bypass the Usborne First Encyclopedia of Science?

#2 *Kate*

*Kate*

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 151 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:25 PM

I'd like to hear opinions about this as well. :001_smile:

#3 Paula in PA

Paula in PA

    Future Crazy Cat Lady

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1130 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:26 PM

We used the Usborne First encyclopedia's in 1st & 2nd and I thought they were perfect for that age, with lots of good information without going over a young child's head, IYKWIM. The explanations and illustrations/pictures were clear without being overly technical. We used the science, human body, our world, space, and oceans ones.

#4 Pata

Pata

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2035 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 08:14 PM

We are using the Kingfisher First Encyclopedia(animals and human body) for first and will use the Usborne ones(our world and space) for second. I like both for that age group, my dd agrees. I also own the Usborne Science Encyclopedia and will use it for 3rd and 4th grade. I think it's a bit much for first, but it's good and you could use that also. Is that clear as muddy water ;)?

#5 Melissa in CA

Melissa in CA

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:06 PM

I seem to always like Kingfisher over Usborne. If Kingfisher has a Science Enclyclopedia for your dc's age range, I say go for that one. ;)

Edited by Melissa in CA, 13 April 2009 - 09:14 PM.


#6 momto2Cs

momto2Cs

    Learning from the roots up

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4420 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:08 PM

We have the Kingfisher one and we love it, with a 6 y.o. and nearly 8 y.o.

#7 nova mama

nova mama

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 573 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:49 PM

We have the Kingfisher animal encyclopedia. I'll copy and paste what I wrote in another thread about Dorling Kindersley:

The photographs in the Dorling Kindersley animal encyclopedia are INCREDIBLE--huge, vivid, so detailed. Each animal entry has a fact box that includes the family, habitat, lifespan, and other information. Not all Kingfisher entries have a "fact box." Kindersley also includes a little "scale" drawing to help you visualize the average size of the animal in comparison to an average adult human. (A hyena, for example, is drawn to about half the height of an adult human.) But the entries still seem brief enough for one session of reading and narrating with a first-grader (haven't tried it yet). In addition to the alphabetized animal entries, about one-third of the book is devoted to background information on animal life.

#8 ~Victoria~

~Victoria~

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 173 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:43 AM

I have been thinking about just walking through some first encyclopedias for science next year and I thought I would bump/resurrect this tread to see if anyone had opinions :)

 

edited to say I found this link.



#9 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:43 AM

I prefer Kingfisher.  Less schizophrenic looking (my apologies to the schizophrenics). 

 

 




What's with the ads?