Targhee
-
Posts
3,745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Targhee
-
-
What else do I need? Field guides? Which ones do you recommend?
Now how do I get started?
I find a loupe helpful - or a little magnifying glass. You could also use binoculars for birding, but they aren't necessary. Colored pencils are great for sketching in your notebook. As far as notebook size, as long as the pages stay open and it is easy to write/draw in any from 3x5" to 9x12" is OK (although it's easier to carry a smaller one).
Field guides - I love these! I have a lot :blush5: The best guides are guides made for your geographical area. Where are you at, about, and maybe we can help. Also, what ages are the kids?
In general Peterson's field guides are very nice, and probably the brand I own most of. Audubon ones have lots of great color pictures in them, but I find them more cumbersome to use. Check out http://www.acornnaturalist.com for some great field guides (and other stuff). As far as types of field guides, it all depends on what you want to see/where you go. Birds and trees are probably the most used in general because they are easier to observe than say mammals, herps, etc. Rocks and minerals field guides are nice too, expecially if that interests your child.
They really isn't a wrong way to do nature study. The green hour has some suggestions on its website. I like to always include where I am, the date, the weather, and who is with me as a heading on the page. Then I write and draw ad lib. Have so much fun!! :001_smile:
-
Thank you so much, Dian! So many great elements to your posts - lesson order, weekly things to be done, lessons with long-term projects/study... this is very helpful to me. :hurray:
-
To me, saying a child won't ever know the scientific method if it isn't taught early is like saying that they won't ever learn algebra if they don't learn it in elementary school. It is the foundational step, established young, that allows the higher skill to be successfully learned and thus enjoyed.
In order to accurately understand algebra we don't teach kids what n equals (or x, or y, or any other variable) - we teach them to start thinking algebraically, like "if you have 2 and you want 10 how many more do you need?" Your analogy of math to science (IMO) should go something like this. In order to accurately understand science, we don't teach what the result of this experiment should be - we teach them with the elements of scientific study. We teach children how to observe (keenly), question (with the voracious appetite for the answer to "why"), and hypothesize (in a limited way, as in "I'm going to raise the ramp now - do you think the ball will roll faster or slower?"), and analyze (more questions and directed study).
I am of the belief that science is two things (both of which should be taught all along the way, in developmentally appropriate ways) - it is both a body of knowledge, and a process of discovery about our world we use to build the body of knowledge.
Like SWB says, trying to make a child form a hypothesis before they have the facts/experience upon which to base a hypothesis is like squeezing a dry sponge and expecting water to come out. I have seen children in co-op class turned off by this. At this age, they just hunger for "why" - they don't really want to guess, they want to gobble up information.I agree that the child, especially the young child who thinks very concretely, needs the "real life context" of the matter in order to make a hypothesis. And you can provide this context without drilling words into their heads. Children use context and "facts" they have gathered through observation to make and test hypothesis all the time! Baby drops a ball, and it bounces and rolls away. From observing this baby hypothesizes that if she drops her bottle it will bounce and roll away. It does! On to the next trial, she drops mom's cell phone which doesn't bounce or roll away. However, it did drop to the floor. Hmm. Baby reasons "if I let go of things they drop to the ground." Through this, and many other contextual experiences, baby has a pretty firm grounding (pun intended) in gravity and can apply it in her life - even if she didn't know that Newton was the scientist to explain it, or that it is related to the masses of bodies (and is not particular to our life on earth), or any other such information. And, no one had to tell her.
I don't expect a child to hypothesize about orbiting bodies, acid-base chemical reactions, or how the a genetic trait will manifest it self in a particular cross. If this was the expectation, the student really would be a "dry sponge." But if you teach them science process, and teach them foundational concepts/information they will better be prepared to handle these kinds of questions later in their academic careers. There is no good reason (except "I want to know, Mom") that you should teach your child the phyla of the animal kingdom (as suggested in WTM). If they need to, they can learn them later, with a contextual frame on which to hang them. But believe me, taxonomy is a changing field, especially with the introduction of phylogenetic study, and even some classifications I learned in college are now out of date 10 years later.
One more thing, the kids keep asking "why" because they want to understand, not because they want to know more facts. You can give them all the facts in the world, but without the framework for understanding it is meaningless.
I want to make sure you know I am not attacking your post - I am simply using it as a framework to base my argument, so no malice intended. :)
-
Have you a link to the yahoo group? I'm waiting for amazon to deliver my book
Thanks!
Stephanie
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/K5science/
The group doesn't have much there yet, but I imagine that is due to the newness of the book.
-
Here's a post from a while back that asks the same questions - maybe some will be useful for you in planning.
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36579
-
He came over to my apartment to play guitar with me. I was dating his roommate at the time, so I don't really consider this a date. It was, however, the beginning of our friendship which grew into the love of my life. :)
-
I almost always see outrageous prices on Amazon's marketplace - even when there are reasonable ones, too. I guess they're hoping to hook someone.
-
The following site has alot of good forms for lesson planning:
These are great! There are many different types/formats.
Another that I have used in the the Tanglewood Corebook, which costs $6.
-
I debated the same issue before purchasing (for the same math programs). I ended up choosing the "plastic" tub of 155 because of the same reason (it was available locally). I imagine the interlocking ones might be nice, but I don't think they're necessary. We're doing just fine with the big tub of plastic ones.
As an aside, the more math manipulatives I see, the more I wish someone would just write a math program to use with legos, since they are they ultimate math manipulative by nature :cool:
-
I use Bento (database program) to keep track of lots of things, including read-alouds, books kids have read, books from the library I'd like to use in future study... I'm a nerdy list and data person.:D
-
First of all - I am sorry, I am not trying to monopolize this thread! I just am excited and keep thinking of things and now I've found something I thought would be helpful. This is from the K5Science yahoo group, written by Dr. Nebel as a response to someone asking how to implement BFSU. The post was longer, but this part in particular I thought would be helpful here.
"A final point is the idea of sitting your children down at a given time in a given place for a specific lesson. With formal education this is a necessity, but go back a few generations to before the advent of widespread formal education. Kids worked along with their fathers and mothers and learned in a hands-on-continuing-discussion way the hows and whys of what needed to be done. Now, science is entwined with everything we do or experience. Therefore, think about how a given lesson relates/applies to various aspects of your everyday life, and through discussion, guide your children in seeing such connections. (Actually, I have had many parents report that they are blown away by their kids making such connections and coming out with them by themselves. When this occurs it shows that the lesson has really "taken root.") You will find suggestions for making such connections in the "Questions/Discussion/Activities..." and "To Parents..." sections of each lesson." -
Basically, Nebel is a big proponent of students studying science by exploring and observing the surrounding.
But what I love the most from NEbel's book (and I believe this is the strength of Nebel's method and makes this book superior ) is the insistence of teaching science on conceptual level, even at early age, so at the end, the students can think scientifically and understand every phenomenon happening on the earth and space.
THat's why it's against teaching only one branch of science per year like what the WTM and other classical curricula suggest ,because science is interrelated.
HE's also against spending time on useless hands on projects which do not enhance knowledge. He called them time waster. E.g. he observed sometimes teacher give hands on projects like building a city on social study lesson, but it's actually just a waste of time, if the teacher doesn't include more valuable stuff to get more out of the lesson, such as: how the water flows in the city, the city waste, etc. So his hands on projects are not the most creative, but they're right on purpose and simple.
I recommend you to invest in this. Really, this is one of the best purchase I've ever done.
Dian
Very well said, Dian. So, have you started teaching with this yet? What are you doing/what is your plan for implementation? I'd love to hear more...
-
Would you keep us posted on your future science finds. While I am interested in science for elementary age students, I would like to hear/read your ideas on middle school science that promotes inquiry.
Wildiris
I haven't done a lot of research (yet) for middle-level science. Although I taught middle-level sciences (7th and 9th grades), the classroom setting is "different" (read "worse") than the homeschool setting. Also, I was not able to choose my curriculum - the district chose it for me. :thumbdown:
So, I can't comment on curricula. But as far as implementation goes, I found Learning Cycles to be very effective, and conducive to constructivist learning (and they reflect the active pursuit of understanding done by working scientists). Learning Cycles are just one method of inquiry science. A learning cycle has three phases: orientation and planning phase, exploration phase, and concept invention phase. They are actually very similar to the philosophy in Nebel's book, only there is a greater expectation of the student to come up with ideas, use skills (measuring, diagramming, math, etc.) and the teacher's role in the last phase is a little more removed than in Nebel's strategies for younger children.
Check out this preview on Google books, pages 5-6 give a brief outline of a learning cycle. As I come across good curricular examples I'll be happy to share.
Another great way to present material is using trade books, especially picture books. Even highschool age students will humor you for a picture book.
-
We did right start, and are using Singapore and Miquon over the summer. I haven't decided if we're going back to RS, or if we'll do all three, or some other combination... :confused: But currently we're using two.
-
Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not, but we bought Easy Classical Geology, Weather and Astronomy to use this year for my DD (2nd grade age). So far we love it! My PK-er is even following along and it is easily adaptable to her.
If I were doing science the WTM way I think this would be the easiest to implement. They seem to do a thorough job of laying it all, giving you advanced notice of needed supplies, using lots of books, and it lines up really well with the suggestions in WTM.
-
Great review Shannon!
I have an idea of how to start teaching this coming fall. Would you mind sharing how you will be attacking the lessons? er... threads?
thanks :bigear:
I've got science scheduled 2-3 times a week next year (Tues/Thurs and then our Friday is reserved for field trips and projects in any subject). A good bulk of our science will be extra-curriculuar - things like nature walks, trips to the beach, catching bugs, gardening, museums, the zoo, books, and following the lead and interests of my children. Every third week (or as the "teachable moment" arises) we will do a lesson from BFSU.
As far as what order to tackle the lessons, I am planning a flexible schedule along the flow chart, but will alter it when interests and questions take us in a different direction. What I do know so far is that I will start with A/B-1, will save B-4, B-4a, B-4B, B-5 for spring, and will probably cover a maximum of 15 lessons in the year. One lesson could take several sessions/days, however. For example, A-5A on Magnets and Magnetic Fields would take about 275 minutes (according to the book), which is over 4.5 hours. I would spread something like this out over at least three sessions.
I plan to follow a general pattern for lessons as suggested in the book:
1st) take advantage of (or create) a teachable moment or have a "show and tell" type session,
2nd) activities from book (guided exploration, demonstration, exploration, etc.)
3rd) interpretive discussion/QandA,
4th) reading correlated book(s) or research into follow-up/higher level topics as interested
I think after completing a group of closely related lessons (like Solids/Liquids/Gases, Air is a Substance, and Matter I: it's particulate nature) I will have the kids complete a project of some kind to demonstrate comprehension. You know like a poster, a presentation, a demonstration, or maybe even do a lapbook and have them show or teach their cousins/grandma/neighbor/etc.
I have just joined the K5Science yahoo group (awaiting approval, but Dr. Nebel just posted he is out of town so it may be a few days before I can post) and am hoping for more suggestions and ideas about the logistics of implementing the book. I'm excited about it - it seems like just the right thing for us right now, and in just the right amount. Check science off the curriculum choices list, now about the rest of my list... :rolleyes:
-
I have been attempting to identify the "ideal" early elementary science curriculum - or at least what I deem is ideal, because as we all know, there is no one-size-fits-all curriculum. This book, Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, by Nebel, was suggested to me (by Moira and others - thank you!) and I must say it has come closest to my ideal of all the curricula I've explored. Here's my review, as promised.
About the book...
Organization
The book contains 41 carefully planned lessons, made to build on each other conceptually. They is not a linear order of lessons, rather a flow chart which allows some flexibility while at the same time ensures you have covered the needed foundational material on which the lesson can build. The lessons are divided into strands (Nature of Matter, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Earth and Space Sciences) which are meant to be studied concurrently rather than in isolation (biology, then chemistry, etc.).
Philosophy
Nebel outlines four principles of teaching according to how children learn. He makes of point several times of explaining the ineffectiveness of memorizing facts in isolation of "real" contextual meaning (I agree with his arguement, read the book for more details).
- Prinicple 1. There are two parts to developing real understanding. There is learning of factual infromation, but understanding comes only as facts are integrated together into a broader, conceptual context.
- Principle 2. New understanding is constructed on a foundation of exisiting understanding.
- Principle 3. Effective learning depends on students self-monitoring what they know, and don't know, and striving to fill in gaps.
- Principle 4. Learning needs to connect to real-life experience.
He also makes a distinction between learning and thinking, "thinking does not come from learning; learning comes from thinking." We as teachers are to help turn on thinking by a) creating an atmosphere in which students feel free and safe in asking questions, b) posing questions that will bring students to reflect and contemplate, c) promoting question and answer discussion to guide thinking. He talks a lot about question and answer, and how it is useful both as an assessment of understanding and in helping the student make meaning of what s/he has learned.
The last small portion of the educational philosophy section of the book is about "Baloney Detection" - which is a primer on logicical reasoning.
Lessons
Each lesson has an overview, Time Required, Objectives, Required Background (previous lessons from the flow chart),Teachable Moments, Methods and Procedures, and Questions/Discussion/Activities to Review, Expand, and Assess Learning.
My $.02...
Keep in mind we haven't done any lessons from the book yet - this is just my opinion as a home schooler and as a science teacher, looking for what to do for science this coming year (1st and pre-K).
Some things I was looking for and found in this book
- it teaches both scientific information and scientific thinking
- it promotes questioning!!!
- concrete, "real life" experiences/phenomena that children can directly relate to
- it is scientifically accurate (believe it or not, some books misunderstand what is going on and present explanations that are not correct)
- it is rigorous in that it requires students to carefully observe, think, and question (and use exact terminology) while at the same time it is laying general foundational information and principles
- it does not require many materials that aren't already around the house (a few exceptions: magnets, fruit flies, some pictures you can find on Google images)
- it includes books for correlated reading
The book isn't meant to be a text for twice-a-week science lessons. There are 41 lessons that you could use as frequently or infrequently as you choose, and most lessons have and on-going nature where you take advantage of "teachable moments" that may not arise during the given class time. It does not cover science the way that WTM outlines, and I doubt it will ever be on the curriculum lists in that book. However, I can see it fitting in quite nicely in a classical curriculum of a different style (LCC for instance). For those interested, the book is secular.
This book won't be for everyone. It is not scripted, does not give step-by-step directions, is not "pick up and go", and very open-ended in nature. I would make an analogy of this to Spalding's The Writing Road to Reading. There is this wonderful idea of teaching, but it isn't structured in such a way that you can just pick up the book and start teaching. But, if you are wanting a sound foundation in scientific literacy and scientific thinking and are willing to "learn how to use the book" I think it is a wonderful choice.
I wanted to add, the book strongly encourages you to say "I don't know" when you don't know the answer, and doesn't expect you to be a scientist in order to teach. Saying "I don't know" gives you a chance to demonstrate how to find the answer, among other things.
- Prinicple 1. There are two parts to developing real understanding. There is learning of factual infromation, but understanding comes only as facts are integrated together into a broader, conceptual context.
-
That is one thing about the book that I think will be seen by some as great flexibility (can follow child's interests and take advantage of teachable moments) and others as ambiguity ("trying to put together a year of lessons for multiple subjects - and possibly multiple kids - is overwhelming enough, just give it to me straight!"). I was thinking about this the other day - 41 lessons covering roughly three years (K-2, and he alludes to another book that will be 3-5 or 3-8). So, if it is nicely divided that would mean 14 lessons a year (actually, one year will be 13). OK, so let's say you do a 36 week school year - that means to evenly space the lessons you would start one every 18 school days.
As far as order of lessons, I am one of those in the teachable moments camp and will probably plan which of the lessons we do only a week or two in advanced. I will start with A/B-1 as it is fundamental to the way we do science as well as the way we humans view the world. We have to make sense of things, classify them, associate them with or dissociate them from other things.
So if you're planning your first months, and you're going to do 4 lessons in that time I would suggest A/B-1, B-2, C-1, B-3 and then follow with either A-2, A-3 or D-1, D-3.
-
I don't use these specifically for spelling, but I don't start any other spelling program until my dc are finished with these. HTH!
Yeah, that!
-
Writing out the full name once at its first mention in a thread should be sufficient (and not be too much extra typing for the author of the post). I'd be happy to do it, and I hope others will too. :)
-
Can you please tell me more about how each component of Singapore Math functions? I'm not sure what you mean by component, but if you mean book it is addressed below.
What books are necessary & why? The Student Textbook and Workbook are necessary - they contain the instruction for the student and the practice exercises.
Which books are optional & why? Any other books are optional.
Textbook - required
Workbook - required
Intensive Practice - optional, used for reinforcement
Teachers Guide - not necessary, this is for a classroom setting
Home Instructors Guide - optional, this is if you need answer key, help in teaching concepts - most people don't use it until you get to level 3
Challenging Word Problems - optional, used to "challenge" to student with more difficult problems
What is the difference between Standard Edition & US Edition? Which do you recommend? US edition is the Singapore book adapted for US measures and conventions. The Standards edition is similar but includes a little bit more material and in slightly different order so that it could meet the CA state standards for adoption as a text.
It has been recommended that I begin with level 1A. Am I safe to assume that starting with 1A would give us a good foundation in Singapore's approach to math? You may see some overlap, but it is easy to move ahead quickly if your child already has the concept down. I am not familiar with Horizon math, but my guess is you are right about starting at 1A to get the foundation there for him.
Is the teaching approach much different than Horizon? Not sure - sorry
Is adding this going to give us more of a challenge or just more of the same? I don't know for sure, but it will add more work in the day. Singapore is meant to be a complete math program, so you'll have to determine how you will combine these to reduce redundancy and not turn your child off to math because of all the math work. HTH
-
My problem is doubting what I purchased is the best when I hear about all this other stuff... I keep having to remind myself "there is no best curriculum, only one (of many) that is good for us"
but it's really hard to listen to myself sometimes :blush:
-
Why I give positive rep points (never had the occasion to give negative):
1) insightful answer to a question
2) well presented argument in a discussion
3) reference or link I find very helpful/useful
4) good sell/buy interaction
-
WOW! So many 1st children.... I don't think my older sister (first child) would ever consider homeschooling. I wonder if there is a correlation, or just a coincidence...
What are you using for math in grades K-4?
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
K - RightStart
1st - Singapore and Miquon