I finally found the answer. If you are looking for the correlating lesson list, see this cross-post: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/529300-introductory-logic-nance-dvds/?p=5942115

Well, I found that if I watched the beginning of each video, the instructor stated which lessons that session was discussing. Tedious and unnecessary, yes, but at least I got my answer. :-) I thought I'd share with the rest of the class, in case someone else was searching for the same thing. --Pamela Session 1 - Introduction Session 2 - Lesson 1 Session 3 - Lessons 2-3 Session 4 - Lessons 4-5 Session 5 - Lessons 6-8 Session 6 - Lessons 9-10 Session 7 - Lessons 11-12 Session 8 - Lessons 13-18 Session 9 - Lessons 19-20 Session 10 - Lessons 21-22 Session 11 - Lessons 23-24 Session 12 - Lessons 25-26 Session 13 - Lesson 27 Session 14 - Lessons 28-29 Session 15 - Lesson 30 Session 16 - Lesson 31 Session 17 - Bonus material (practical application of Lesson 31) Session 18 - Lesson 32 Session 19 - Lessons 33-35 Session 20 - Lesson 36

I'm cross-posting from the K-8 forum, because my original post has gotten no traffic. It occurred to me that even though Introductory Logic is marketed for middle school, it may be more often used in high school. Hopefully someone here can help me! I just got a new (5th edition) Introductory Logic set for use this year. I also got a set of the DVDs, used, without realizing that they were not made to go with the current edition of the textbooks. Regardless of the issue with different editions, I cannot find any information on how to use the (older set of) DVDs. Can anyone give me some insight on when/how to expect to use the DVDs? There are two very nice schedule options in the teacher's guide, but the DVDs aren't mentioned. (Perhaps the new DVDs are written to mirror the lesson numbers?) Nonetheless, I'm stymied. Short of sitting down and watching the series, I'm not sure how to plan.this out. Right now what I see is 20some "sessions" that are somehow supposed to mesh with 36 lessons. I use software to manage our lesson plans, and I wasn't expecting this much work to plan out the lessons. Help! :confused1: Thanks in advance, Pamela

I just got a new (5th edition) Introductory Logic set for use this year. I also got a set of the DVDs, used, without realizing that they were not made to go with the current edition of the textbooks. Regardless of the issue with different editions, I cannot find any information on how to use the (older set of) DVDs. Can anyone give me some insight on when/how to expect to use the DVDs? There are two very nice schedule options in the teacher's guide, but the DVDs aren't mentioned. (Perhaps the new DVDs are written to mirror the lesson numbers?) Nonetheless, I'm stymied. Short of sitting down and watching the series, I'm not sure how to plan.this out. Right now what I see is 20some "sessions" that are somehow supposed to mesh with 36 lessons. I use software to manage our lesson plans, and I wasn't expecting this much work to plan out the lessons. Help! :confused1: Thanks in advance, Pamela

Thanks for the help. Honestly, if I'm adding in meal prep and whatnot, it sounds like I'm not really far from the norm. It's a big shock from last year, because it seems like we really jumped in the amount of time school takes, but I suppose it makes sense. Last year the kindergartener was mostly doing fun stuff and at her own pace -- at age 4, some days she'd want to do school with us, and some days she'd just want to play. I was fine with that. There was little actual work to check, and her "schoolwork" with me was mostly structured playtime or talking and reading about different topics. Grade 2 is a bit more intense than first grade, and I think we're feeling a little of that. There are also more complex math topics (math is not her strong suit), and Thing 2 just plain has to work. (Work is not her strong suit either... :lol: It's like a dirty word to her.) It's not too difficult for her, it's just that she wants everything to be easy and effortless. Then, with a new baby in the house last year, I was happy to let subjects that were less crucial slide. Reading, writing, and 'rithmatic always got done, but sacrificing my sanity for Ancient Greece was not worth it. (And I used to be a history teacher! :001_smile:) This year I'm actually keeping to my lesson plans. Altogether, I think it just came as a shock how all-consuming this school year is. And, of course, some days are better than others. I think I will try devoting the first part of the day to Thing 2. We'll try that for a week or two and see where we are. I also hadn't considered breaking up meal times and feeding people at different times. I'm not sure if that would work for us, but I'll think about that, too. One thing that has fallen by the wayside was that I used to have a set time to go over yesterday's work at the beginning of each person's school day, but I (obviously) can't be reviewing three people's work simultaneously. On the other hand, school goes more smoothly when everyone starts first thing in the morning. The alternative we've been using is for me to sit down sometime in the afternoon with each person and review what they've done that day, but that brings back the "not school again!" issue. Maybe if I schedule an afternoon "review" time with the oldest and the kindergartener (who aren't as sensitive to interruptions and who appreciate schedules), that would work. Then I could sit down in the morning with the 2nd grader, review her work from the previous day, and do that day's instruction all at once. No breaks. Thanks again for the help and for lending an ear. I find "thinking out loud" to be very beneficial to me. (I like to call it "thinking out loud" and not "talking to myself!" :lol:) --Pamela

Sorry, one more thing. :) What is your 2 yo doing while you're doing school, or are there just enough other kids around that there's always someone to play with? Beyond that, I'm starting to think that maybe it's not so unreasonable for me to just expect an eight hour day for myself, once I figure in making meals and things like that. And of course I know that things will change as the little one gets older. Honestly, if he weren't in the mix this year would probably be industrious, but relatively pleasant. (Although I am pleased as punch to have him!) --Pamela

I'm sorry. Let me clarify: Each of the kids is spending 2 hours or less completing individual schoolwork (K about 30-45 minutes; 4th about 1 1/2 hours; 2nd could be anything, depending on her motivation and distraction level! I'm shooting for about an hour's worth of work for her.) Then we usually do 30 minutes to 1 hour as a group in science, social studies or art/other fun subjects each day. That is super flexible, depending on whether we're doing an experiment or crafts with history and how much fun we're having. The kids are doing 2-3 hours of school, tops. It's me who is trying to "do school for 8+ hours a day;" I need help managing myself. In no way do I underestimate the value of playing. These kids do not need to be sitting at a desk for 8 hours to accomplish a day's schoolwork, and I agree that they'll learn as much or more through play at this age. And now my son is old enough to have hobbies, like learning to write computer code and doing electronic stuff with Snap Circuits, that are indistinguishable from education anyway. When the kids are "doing school" all day long, it's because I can't find time to sit down with anyone for an hour straight. The big problem I'm having with playing is that my 7 yo, for example, will be "done" with her schoolwork, at 10 a.m., but we haven't done math or English yet, and I'm in the middle of something else. Then at 10:45, say, I have time to do those subjects with her, but she balks because now she's playing and she was "done" with school. Then after lunch, we have time while the little one is sleeping to work on history, which she loves, but she balks because she's playing again. It's not the length of time she's actually working, it's the starting and stopping that's killing her. Maybe if I just called it recess it'd be easier... Hope that clarifies things. This is a "mommy stress" issue, not a kid one. Our kids are anything but! --Pamela

I need help in trying to manage my daily work flow for our homeschool. This year I have three in school -- a kindergartener, a 2nd grader, and a 4th grader. The oldest has been identified as gifted (not that I needed anyone to tell me) and is fairly self-motivated, and the kindergartener is following in his footsteps. The 2nd grader is bright, but her talents are more in being creative and an excellent reader rather than in strictly measurable math/science/spelling skills. She does learn quickly, but she is very easily distracted from her work and needs quite a bit of hand-holding and one-on-one instruction compared to the other two. We also have an 18 month old toddler who naps for about 1.75-2.5 hours at some random time each day. So far, all of them have separate core subjects, but we do science, art, and history together. I am able to differentiate activities fairly well so that they are all engaged in those subjects, and with three bright kids who are only four years apart, I don't think I'm doing anyone a disservice. We usually do those subjects while the toddler is sleeping. My problem has been in my getting everything done each day. The kids are getting their work done (for the most part), and I have the entire week laid out for them on a checklist so that I do not need to direct them constantly. But there just doesn't seem to be enough of me to go around. Each day, Math, English, and to some extent spelling need to be taught in a very hands-on fashion to my 2nd grader. I need to review math, with occasional deeper instruction, and do a couple of longer reading/composition lessons each week with my 4th grader. I have a daily (fairly short, Charlotte Mason-style) lesson with my kindergartener. Most of the rest of their work is self-guided or can be done just by asking me an occasional question. It really doesn't seem like it should be a Herculean task, but once I add checking all of their work and reviewing it each day, group lessons, and all of the "regular life" -- like breakfast, lunch, putting the little one down for a nap, checking that the kids are doing their chores, etc., -- we're regularly doing school from before 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. And I'm regularly checking papers and other things either late at night or early in the morning. The worst part is that, for them, things just drag on. They finish the work that they can do alone, go and play, and then I call them back when I'm free to do instruction. I know it feels like a yo-yo some days, especially for the second grader. Once she starts to play, she doesn't want to keep being interrupted, and she feels like school never ends. So what am I doing wrong? Or is this just life with three school-aged kids and a toddler? (We've done this before with toddlers, and I know life changes drastically at age 3 or so.) Should we be trying to do our work at one large table, instead of spread out at desks, so that I can be in a central location? Should I pick a different child to focus on each day, so that everyone is at least getting more of my attention twice a week? Should I just be getting up an hour earlier than the kids because life frequently goes more smoothly that way? And how do I keep up with all of the checking of work? Most importantly, how can I afford to hire an assistant who will make sure the kids have done their chores, make the meals that always seem to suck the time out of the day, and keep an eye on the toddler? I'm a mom in need of a wife! ;) I am posting here because I suspect that the first response I would get on the general boards would be to cut back on the kids' workload, but I really don't want to do that. These are bright kids who need to be challenged, and we are homeschooling primarily because this way they can move at their own pace. I have actually been holding back my kindergartener, who is already doing first grade math and reading, and my 9 year old is almost ready to start Pre-Algebra. Other than general complaints about school -- because they'd all rather be playing or watching TV -- no one is complaining about the difficulty of the lessons or about the work load. (Except me! :lol:) I'd love some suggestions or just moral support! Thanks, Pamela

Thanks! I'll try those on her the next time we're at Penney's. I don't mind her wearing boys' jeans, and I'm happy to embellish them, but I didn't like the fit her brother's jeans had. --Pamela

I was looking at their website right now, and it looks like Sonoma only makes girls clothes in sizes 4-7. I don't see anything in older girls sizes. (I thought I'd mention it because I know other people are looking for suggestions, too.) --Pamela

Penney's has Arizona bootcut jeans that they say have "a comfortable relaxed fit and classic, easygoing style". They also have an adjustable waist and a bit of spandex added to the cotton. I don't think they look particularly like a relaxed fit, but for $10/pair they're probably worth a short. http://tinyurl.com/8nhbmkk --Pamela

You guys are the greatest. Even if I couldn't find anything, it's nice to have someone to commiserate with! Plus you've come up with a few brands I haven't heard of before, which is what I was hoping for. Land's End and Hanna Anderson both look promising, and I never would've thought to look there. I can't say I'm keen on the prices, but I may just have to live with it. Has anyone ever tried a brand called La Galleria? I saw their line of colored twill jeans while looking for a different brand, and they look promising, fit-wise. They're also on sale for $19, which is a step up from $30-50. They come in a number of bright colors. Here's a link for the blue: http://www.drjays.com/shop/G2-V61984-R404-P1364044/sizes-7-16-big-kids/colored-twill-jeans-7-16.html Oddly, the purple ones seem to be cut narrower in the seat than the blue and red. --Pamela

This may sound dumb, but I am totally at the end of my rope with this "skinny, skinnier, skinniest" jeans thing. I have a little girl whom I am trying to dress modestly. I don't want her to look shapeless, but I also don't want her to look like pedophile bait. This child has yet to wear a pair of jeans that haven't belonged to her brother. The problem is that she has always had a bit of a figure. She is not overweight or a "plus/half" size. Those sizes just fit all wrong. I have a picture of her when she was 3, and she already had curves where a woman's natural waistline would be. She's lean on top, but she's inherited my husband's not-insubstantial butt and thighs. If I put her into any pair of girls' jeans that I have ever seen, she is going to look like, well, a working girl. I sew, and I know from experience that any pair of jeans that I see for sale that lays flat in the front and back will not accommodate her rear end. She needs something that, when laying flat, will "bunch up" at the seat. I also am totally uninterested in anything that is low-rise. So far the only luck I've had has been a 1950's solution: Put her in her brother's loose fit pants. On her, the loose fit still looks a little curvy. She fills the jeans differently from my son. Unfortunately, they just don't look like girls' jeans. The pockets sit too low on the seat, and the legs are cut too wide for girls' jeans. She wears them at home, but I don't really send her out in them. They just look wrong. Certainly I can't be the only mother with this problem. I assume that if you live on a ranch, your girls aren't dressing in jeggings! Right now she's mostly wearing knit pants, but she really needs to have the durability and versatility of a decent pair of jeans. I am seriously missing the jeans of my youth. Dressing her in the late-'80s or early '90s would have been a cinch. If anyone has any suggestions for brands/styles, I'd love to hear them. I am hoping that, now that she is firmly in girls' sizes, there is some option out there that I'm unaware of. (She's probably in a size 7 or 8.) --Pamela

I was raised in church and have a fairly traditional background. I also never heard of the evolution or YE/OE debates (in any serious way) until I was in my 9th grade Biology class. As I recall, the teacher said about evolution, "You don't have to agree with this or believe this, but you do have to know it for the test." What we did cover was a fairly basic and straightforward explanation of the history and theory of evolution that spanned about 1/4 of a chapter of the textbook. Then we went on to something else. (I later found out that my Bio teacher was very much a Creationist.) There was no pressure to believe any particular thing. Fast forward almost 25 years, and I would say that it is a totally different world we are living in. You can't watch PBS without having some evolutionary education leeching into your kids' entertainment. Animals' traits aren't "specialization" anymore, they're "adaptation". People who who devoutly hold to YE/Creationist views need to push harder and earlier to get those views to their kids before they're old enough to watch Dinosaur Train. The funny thing is, even though I'm not firmly committed to one camp (OE/YE or Creationist/Evolutionist), I'm incredibly frustrated by the push to involve these theories in science lessons for pre-schoolers. I'm with the PP who said that she enjoyed discussing this when her children were older and better able to have deeper discussions on the issues. I agree. Unfortunately, it's hard to stave that off, and you're right in trying to figure out what you believe so that you can figure out what/how to teach. For example, the summer dinosaur class at the Pittsburgh Museum of Natural History has changed immensely in the over the last four years since Thing 1 took it. Now, rather than stressing basic scientific observation with the 4-5 year olds (relative sizes of dinos, identifying different types of dinos, herbivores vs. carnivores, etc.), they are strongly focused on how dinosaurs evolved and became extinct and how you can see dinosaurs alive today when you see a chicken. Why is this important to pre-schoolers? Frankly, all of the death they talked about in the new class was pretty depressing. Thing 3 came home with a poster that had to explain the origins of a juvenile fossil footprint. Her answer? It came from a baby dinosaur getting trapped in a lava flow when her mommy couldn't come and save her; illustrations were included. Thing 1 came home from the same class knowing the difference between a pteradactyl and a pteranadon and having made a pteranadon that flapped its wings when you pulled a string. (BTW, Thing 3 doesn't know the difference.) Like you, my jury is still out on what to believe. I know that I am shaping my kids' worldviews by everything I do (or don't!) say, but I am not comfortable advocating in one direction. And as it has been pointed out before, this is not a salvation issue. Instead, I have tried my best to explain that we really don't know for sure, because God is God, and we are not. We weren't there, and there is no way to prove what happened. We've talked about Genesis 1 and the fact that, because He is God, there's no reason to think that the world couldn't have been created in six days (24 hour days). But because that chapter is poetry, it may have been symbolic and pointing out that there is a Creator, and He created absolutely everything. We've also discussed the references in other parts of the Bible that suggest that God's "day" is not necessarily a 24-hour period, so maybe he created it in that way, but not in 144 hours. I approach it as a wonderful and fascinating mystery, because that's what the act of Creation was. As for evolution (the "man descending from the apes" parts, not the observable fluctuations in populations part), we've discussed that God created man, but we don't know how he did it. The Bible is quite clear that God intentionally created man to be set apart from the animals and to bear His image, so I'm unrelenting on that point, but how is a different question. I do have a devoutly Catholic friend who is comfortable with the fact that, no matter at what point God placed His image in/upon man, it was at that point that man became man. Whether that was while his monkey cousins were swinging in trees or as a totally new and different created being in the Garden, bearing the Image of God is what sets men apart from the animals. I am becoming increasingly drawn to that position. The one thing I do frequently try to drive home to the kids (where their worldviews really are being shaped by me, I think) is that -- however this happened -- none of this came about without God. My major beef with all of the evolutionary teaching for kids is that it comes primarily from an atheistic viewpoint. I make sure to impress that theories change over the centuries, but no matter how we currently believe it happened, God did it. I would urge you to send that message also and to set aside troublesome materials until/unless you feel a clearer answer for yourself. I am happy that my kiddos seem to be getting the "God Did It" message loud and clear, and in another five years or so, when we can have well-informed arguments about the pros and cons of various theories, it should be a rollicking good time around here. Until then, I'll spend my time teaching them "boring" stuff, like how atoms work, what cell structures look like under a microscope, and the physics behind a see-saw. It's not like science has a shortage of interesting topics! --Pamela

In general, Primarily (and Lollipop) Logic introduce concepts at very basic levels, and the pages within the topic get increasingly complex. I think you could just go on to the next topic if your kiddo is "maxed out" on analogies, for example. You can always come back to those pages sometime in the future when he's older or his logic skills have increased. Or you may find that the increasing complexity builds his logic skills right along with it. The book Primarily Thinking is also by Prufrock, and you may or may not like it. It's themes are compare/contrast, classification, fact/opinion, cause/effect, patterns, and sequencing. I was a little disappointed by it, because it wasn't exactly what I was looking for -- it seemed a little more like work, not quite as "fun" as the Lollipop/Primarily Logics. But it would be a good introduction if you're looking to work on any of those skills. If you want to know more about Primarily Thinking let me know. I didn't think that the samples online gave a good idea of the book. --Pamela