Jump to content


Amy M

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


430 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Biography
    Missionary mommy
  • Interests
    Reading, playing piano
  • Occupation
    Missionary wife and mother

Recent Profile Visitors

536 profile views
  1. Our math online tutor Mrs. Flynn uses chapters 1-8 for her Algebra 2 course, and chapters 9-15 for her Pre-Calc course, each course taking a year, and I think she calls them both honors. If you want to see which problem she assigns, check out her tab for homework calendar under the tab called student resources. That may be helpful to see what someone who teaches an honors-level, vigorous math course expects for those difficult problems.
  2. I'd highly recommend Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith, if you're wanting world history. It goes through each African country after they get their independence, so it covers about 1950-2000, maybe 2010. Very readable. If you want a novel to go with it, try Cry the Beloved Country by Alan Paton.
  3. I am looking for reviews of Spectrum Chemistry by Dobbins. I was given a first ed. textbook, so I can use that, but I'd need to still purchase the lab kit plus lab workbook and teacher's edition. We are currently finishing up Rainbow science, his junior high curriculum, and I'm not sure I want to stick with this company. I'm thinking of switching my junior high science curric because of the negatives, but having spent so much money on the lab kit, I don't really want to switch. But I've got four more kids coming up... The reading in Rainbow is not very much work. It seems that a lot of the instruction is done in the labs. But we find the labs frustrating. Even with the kit, it takes a while to locate the materials, and sometimes the instruction doesn't seem sufficient to really gain understanding. My firstborn is doing okay with it, but I'm not sure how my next kids will do. So if the chemistry curriculum is similar, I wondered if I should just invest in a different curriculum or purchase the rest of Spectrum and use that. I'm looking for young-earth creation options that are clear and engaging. Thank you!
  4. James Nance's Fitting Words CAP's Rhetoric Alive Memoria Press's Rhetoric package How did you choose between these programs, if you used any of them? Has anyone tried to compare them? I would be open to online classes as well, if you think any are better than these programs. We need to choose for our high school, and since we are missionaries overseas, I need to try to stick with what I pick. Mailing different choices over here is a nightmare.
  5. I am posting here copies of my correspondence with Martin at MP, plus a forum discussion on MP comparing Traditional Logic to CAP's logic and comparing TL to Nance's program. Amy, You asked several questions, so let me take those in turn. First, in regard to Classical Academic Press's program, the relevant specific comparison is between my Traditional Logic I and II program and CAP's The Discovery of Deducation, since TL I & II are focused on formal logic and DoD is mostly focused on formal logic. I think the differences (and I think CAP would agree with these) would be: · My book covers more of the traditional system that CAP's. Whereas my book covers both simple categorical and simple hypothetical reasoning, as well as complex forms of both kinds, DoD covers only simple categorical reasoning. So I think mine is more comprehensive · I treat formal logic separately from material logic, so TL I and II are purely formal logic and my Material Logic is purely material logic. DoD is mostly formal but has a section covering some basic topics in material logic. There are long traditions that do it both ways, I just find it clearer to treat them separately. · Just perusing DoD, it would appear that my book has a lot more exercises to master the material. In skills subjects, we stress a lot of practice so that students habituate themselves to the procedures presented. We also try to provide all the exercises necessary for this so that teachers don't have to invent more exercises. · My books do not include Venn Diagrams (DoD does) since they assume something called "existential import" an assumption of modern logic that is rejected by traditional logicians because of its modern assumptions. I use Euler's Diagrams, which do not contain this assumption at points where I think they are helpful. Those are just the obvious things which I can say without having had occasion to go through the book carefully. It does seem to be nicely laid out and does focus on traditional logic (an advantage not shared by many other contemporary textbooks). In regard to Catholic/Protestant, St. Thomas/Van Til question, I guess the first thing to say is that that would not constitute a difference between the two programs. They both study traditional logic, and traditional logic operates on Aristotelian philosophical assumptions that are shared by Catholics and most protestants. There are strains of protestant thought in which nominalism (the questioning of the reality of universal ideas) is predominant, but even that does not necessarily affect one's views on logic. But nominalism figures predominantly in the development of much of the the modern logic systems studied in colleges and universities today, which is one of the reasons I do not emphasize it. The logic studied by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon was the traditional Aristotelian logic that you will find in both these programs. _____________________________ Q: Martin told me at a convention that his materials are based on pre-20th Century developments in philosophy and I was wondering if his is the only program in the homeschooling market that has that distinction (which I highly value). I know his program is solid beyond question but, frankly, it's a bit daunting for me even with the DVD lectures option. A: I am posting here a response Martin previously gave about MP's logic in contrast to Logos Press' logic. Soon I will have his response about CAP's logic which I will post when I have it. -Paul ______________ Well, let me take a stab at this question, with the obvious proviso that I authored one of the texts being compared. And let me class my answers in two parts: the first those with which I think the authors of both texts would agree, and the second those with which there might be disagreement. 1. Facts about the two books with which both authors would agree: First, the Memoria Press Traditional Logic series emphasizes traditional, linguistic logic while Jim's series emphasizes modern mathematical logic. Second, the Memoria Press program is "deeper" (it goes into one system of logic and spends all its time studying it, while Jim's program is "wider" in the sense that it covers several system of logic (the traditional and the modern). Third, the Memoria Press program has more exercises than Jim's (I think he would agree with this, anyway). 2. Facts about the two books with which there may be disagreement between the authors: First, the two systems respectively studied in the two books are entirely different, involve different assumptions about reality, and have different philosophical origins. Traditional logic is Aristotelian in origin and assumes that words or "terms" legitimately refer to universal ideas (also called "natures" or "essences") which exist in things. This is an assumption that is common to all of classical thought and to historic Christianity, and finds its greatest expression in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Modern logic is nominalist in nature and originates with Gottlob Frege, a 19th century German philosopher, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think Jim would agree with me on most of these facts, although he might not agree with me as to the significance of them. Secondly, traditional logic is what was actually used in the trivium. The trivium is language study, and traditional logic is conducted in and oriented toward real human language, while modern logic deals much more in mathematical symbols. This is a reflection of the differing assumptions about words. In traditional logic, a term is a sign signifying a nature, and cannot be replaced with any other word to yield the same meaning, since then it would refer to another nature. In modern logic, on the other hand, terms can function as essentially mathematical symbols, which can be replaced with any other term and still yield the same meaning. Traditional logic treats language qualitatively, while modern logic involves the belief that language can be quantified. Again, I think Jim would agree with most of these points, but not necessarily about their significance. Thirdly, traditional logic uses a mastery learning approach, ensuring that the student has mastered the program at each level and is therefore prepared to proceed to the next lesson. It includes quite a lot of exercises to ensure this mastery. Jim's program would benefit from some supplementation in this regard (I think the videos that go along with the program help in this regard). All that being said, Jim's program is a fine program and is the best thing out there to teach the system of modern logic at the high school level. Martin A: The difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Art of Argument The chief difference between Memoria Press' Traditional Logic and Material Logic, on the one hand, and the Art of Argument is that they are covering different things. TL covers formal logic; AA is a course on informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are a branch of material logic, but not the part of material logic covered in the current MP text. Right now we don't have a course covering informal fallacies. The more relevant comparison is between TL and the The Discovery of Deduction. I think the main differences would be what is covered in the respective texts. Both TL books together cover the complete system of traditional logic, which includes 1) simple categorical arguments; 2) simple hypothetical arguments; and 3) complex forms of both categorical and hypothetical arguments. DD covers only the first. I don't know but I suspect CAP may be planning another complementary course for those. We really stress the mnemonic verse devised by William of Sherwood in the Middle Ages for the manipulation of syllogisms so they really get to know them from all perspectives. DD doesn't have this, but, again, that may be included in a later book. I think our logic books may be more exercise-heavy as well. We really stress mastery learning in all our programs so we really go overboard on making sure there are enough exercises to really master the subject. Maybe we are a little OCD about that, but it seems to work pretty well. Those seem to me to be the major differences. ______________________ We chose to use MP's TL 1-2, and maybe we'll also do Material. Having looked at the programs (and having formerly studied logic extensively), my dh thought that TL had the important ideas for logic. We didn't want a lot of symbolic mathematical-type logic, but one based more on words and definitions.
  6. Masterbooks has this: https://www.masterbooks.com/civics-and-the-constitution-curriculum-pack Generations has this--I don't know how typical it is for a government course: God and Government MFW uses two books: Never Before in History and Under God I don't know if these resources were already linked above...
  7. Lots of good ideas here, thank you. Looks do-able, if I don't get lazy! I'll be juggling phonics with the littlest and Homer with the oldest. 😜 I've been thinking about combining the top two (12 and 14yo) for Henty's Cat of Bubastes. I saw MFW does that in 9th grade... is Henty okay for a lighter read in high school? is he too light or too much... MFW has the high schoolers independent. I wondered if I combine my 12 and 14yo for some of the works if that will require me to make the 12yo an entirely different schedule when he gets up there? I was kind of hoping that if I work out a nice schedule for the 14yo this year, that it work for the 12yo when he gets up to 9th or 10th grade himself. Is it better to do that (like MFW--put them more independent in high school--I think MFW has a weekly meeting for discussion and planning with the student), or to combine them for discussions and readings (like TOG)? Trying to think about what is going to work for us, and it's hard to know.
  8. Thanks again for all of your help, Lori D. Really wish I could read the lit with my kids. I'm sure it would facilitate great discussion. My other children's needs push me to make my oldest mostly independent for lit. I'm trying to read and prepare ahead to still get some great discussions in there where possible. Yes, this is for high school level--I'm thinking to assign it in a few months during his 9th grade year.
  9. I've done this, too. 🙂 I was wondering if I need to do something more on the rhetoric level if I assign Bulfinch's. My oldest will be 14 and starting 9th grade in 2 weeks, so I'm planning for literature for him.
  10. 😂800 pages! That's not something I can just "stick in" as a supplement, is it? I immediately was curious and looked at OWC's Greek Histories reader. It's 631 pages in my PDF. 250 pgs on Herodotus (books 1-9), 200 on Thucydides (books 1-8), and over 100 on Xenophon (books 1-7). Just looking at Book 1 of Herodotus, I see that sections 8-27, 95-187, and 190-216 are omitted. So evidently OWC only assigns portions. I don't know if you have to purchase to access their "materials" page? They have all their readers in PDF there--maybe that would be helpful for someone here. The readers are already clipped to include just the materials Callihan teaches on. What is WHA? Thank you for that synopsis of Herodotus. I'll look up Thucydides, since I don't now him either. 😊 Xenophon--I was thinking of omitting him, because my boy is a history buff and already read the Landmark book on Xenophon. I heard that the Landmark book was an abridged version of Xenophon, but I don't know how true that is.
  11. If you teach Edith Hamilton's or Bulfinch's Mythology (I just mention Bulfinch's, because that's what I have), what does that look like for you? Do you use a guide? a workbook w/ comprehension questions? Do you have them only read? Just read and narrate (orally or written)? Discuss with them Socratically? (which brings me back to #1...) And how often do you have a lit discussion, if so? once per day or week? Other Has anyone tried to bring in a Christian worldview--comparing and contrasting Christian theology with Greek myths? Thank you for your help!
  12. 1. I guess I think it's preferable to have a full world history, though it might not need all the chapters in HOTAW--so not that full, lol. But a little more full than OWC. 2. I was thinking about doing this option pretty much like you stated. The lit that I would be doing would be part of the English credit, and I would use OWC's unit (Epic) for Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. I wasn't sure if I would use all of OWC's Greek unit on the plays (don't remember the name of it--Drama?) If I used any of that, though, I'd still count that in the lit credit. The OWC Greek Philosophers unit--would that count as history, or a quarter credit of philosophy elective? So maybe I wouldn't cover that this year? Not sure about that unit. Therefore, from OWC, out of 4 units, only 1, the Greek Histories would count towards my history credit. In my understanding, the Greek Histories unit has the students read Herodotus and Thucydides, maybe a bit of Xenophon? So there are my primary sources. So if I replaced some of HOTAW's Greek history with these primary sources and teaching from OWC, then I didn't think that was adding too much for the history credit... But I've never read Herodotus/Thucydides, so I don't know if they covered any other world history, or only a very specific slice of Greek history like the Peloponnesian Wars or something. So in that case, I'm not married to the idea of them reading a ton on the Peloponnesian wars, either, to the exclusion of general world history. 3. Answered above in #2. OWC is a history text using primary sources. But it's not world history, so I thought I'd like a bit more world history than OWC has. I'd be open, but I'm a missionary overseas, so I can't purchase new books right now. I've already got several good options here--just need to figure out which parts I'd like to use, I guess? Yes, for my oldest. He'll be 14 and in 9th grade shortly after the time we start this curriculum. We school according to S. Africa's calendar, which begins in January. So I'm trying to figure this out now. I never thought about my kids not liking video instruction. 😁 We'll see how it goes with the Epics, because I know I'm using that for some of our lit this year. We're using MUS, but that only uses video instruction once or twice a week.
  13. I'm sorry for your stress about this "essential" subject. My oldest is 13, and he loves math. He is a bit young for his grade, so the first thing I wondered is if your signature is correct that your daughter is 15. If she's 15 and a junior, then she's young for her grade, and it wouldn't be a big problem to call her a sophomore? Having read all the comments, I see that was suggested. The second thought I had was to use Math U See. Then I saw that was discussed already. 😁But--the WTM boards tend to have Type-A curricula. Lol, I don't know what to call it, but these boards seem to attract those who want the strongest, deepest, most rigorous curricula. MUS is well-beloved by many homeschoolers, and will do just fine for a child trying to get the high school credits done. We used MUS Alg1 and then I accelerated my son through Foerster's Alg 1. Then he made it through MUS Geometry in 8-9 weeks? Now he's accelerating through Jacob's Geometry. This allowed me to compare the two programs. While MUS Alg was definitely not as rigorous as Foerster's, it still took my son over half the year, and at least the first half of Foerster's was covered (except for sets) to the point that my son could whiz through it. MUS Alg 1 didn't cover the quadratic formula, which was covered a lot in Foerster's. Then towards the end of Foerster's there were more things not covered in MUS Alg 1 (ds had to slow down!), but I think were in the Geometry, or maybe will show up in MUS Alg2. I also didn't see the gaps Lori mentioned, but maybe Mr. Demme fixed it after all these years? My point is, that if you do decide to teach Geometry, I suggest MUS. The Geometry was easier than what Jacob's is appearing to be, and Mr. Demme explains things very well. If you had 1.5 years to finish Alg1, Geo, and Alg2, and consider half a year for each 😕, MUS Geometry is doable in that amount of time. Also, I don't really consider MUS as "mastery" (vs. "spiral") at the high school levels. It's like the other books I've seen, in that the concepts do build on themselves, and there's review all along. I could see someone wanting more review, but MUS does have 3 review pages per lesson. Same with Foerster's or Jacob's, though--you have to master the earlier chapters to get the later ones, and every new lesson has review problems. Perhaps I'm not experienced enough to see a big difference there. I sat with my son for every MUS lesson and read the book, so that if he wasn't understanding something, I could help him. Then I read the Foerster's lessons before he did so I could help him. Now in Mus Geo and Jacob's I haven't been able to keep up, so he's more on his own. So if she wants your help, I'd say like everyone else to do that first thing in the day and sit with her, and nothing else gets done until that's done. Give her lots of praise. However, if you think she needs to be pushed into action, perhaps telling her you are getting her a tutor to whom she has to answer would be helpful. (like people mentioned a CC course. I suggest you contact Mrs. Flynn with Liberty Tutorials (she talks kinda like Garga described above... She's patient, and expects math to take a good chunk out of your day. The only two negatives for your situation are that she uses tough texts, and I don't know if she would meet privately to tutor your daughter in an accelerated way. But she wants to see every kid succeed at math, if they just have enough help and instruction.)
  14. I was planning on using RR's OWC Greeks this year, but as I look at it, I'm thinking to do maybe a 9-18-week term of ancient history first leading up to the history/lit/philosophy covered in OWC. Has anyone tried to use parts of HOTAW that precede OWC Greeks/Romans, and then jumped over to OWC for the parts of history that it covers, and then jumped back and forth like that between these resources? I'm thinking of using HOTAW to fill in gaps of world history that aren't covered by OWC. I am unsure just looking at HOTAW's contents how to schedule it and what the most important parts would be, if I cut certain chapters. Are there certain chapters that are very interesting and more essential than others?
  15. Has anyone made a schedule for HOTAW that isn't quite so strictly chronological? Maybe within the five parts, you grouped all the China sections, India, etc?
  • Create New...