lotsofpumpkins
-
Posts
1,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by lotsofpumpkins
-
-
Giving this a bump since it's already a few pages back.
-
-
Do you point out his mistakes and make him rewrite it? Maybe if he figures out that he will have to rewrite the entire assignment, he'll start being more careful the first time.
-
Speaking of home science tools...
http://www.hometrainingtools.com/science-projects/c/1072/
Homemade Ice Cream in a Bag would be fun for a summer camp. It would be fun to "test" at home too.
We've done this one at home, and it is fun. I probably won't do it at camp though, because between 3 meals and 3 snacks and lots of desserts, the children are already eating all.day.long. In fact, I was originally supposed to do the cooking track, but when I mentioned to dh how much food they are already eating, he agreed that we don't need more excuses to eat. So, I suggested science instead. And no, my dh has nothing to do with the menus. (This is a multi-church camp.) If he did, I would likely use my influence to cut down the amount of sugar consumed drastically. But since I have no control over that, I just have to let go for a few days and trust my dc to make good choices.
-
Have you checked out the Steve Spangler site? They have some fun stuff there. Although, I don't know what kind of budget you're working with...
I don't know what kind of a budget I'm working with either. I do need to keep it as inexpensive as I can though. They strive to keep this camp as affordable as possible, so I need to keep it pretty cheap so they don't feel the need to raise prices next year.
Thanks for the ideas everyone! I've also been looking at homesciencetools.com and they have a lot of great ideas.
I'm currently boiling some eggs to try out the egg-in-a-bottle activity. My dc are excited that they get to be the guinea pigs; I need to try everything out myself before making plans for camp! (Although camp is still over 2 months away, I'll drive myself crazy thinking about it until I have at least a loose plan!)
-
Thanks for that book idea, but I think we are just looking for lots of hands-on science. They will be getting lots of Bible teaching through large and small groups in the morning and evening, so we don't necessarily have to do a Bible lesson along with the science. I will mention that the science is how it is because that's how God made it. I do want to make sure they know that everything points to the Creator and that science and God do not need to (and shouldn't) be separated.
I'm picturing keeping the children busy actually DOING science, not just watching a demonstration with a lesson.
Some ideas I've had:
learn about acid/bases and play with litmus paper or red cabbage indicator
make a vinegar/baking soda volcano
play with cornstarch and water
coke and mentos
egg into a bottle (where you place a hard-boiled egg onto the mouth of a bottle and throw a match into the bottle and the egg is sucked in)
It's looking like we'll end up doing a hodge-podge of stuff each day. If anyone has more ideas, I'd love to hear them.
-
I have agreed to teach a "weird science" track at the children's church camp this summer. I'll have children who have completed 2nd-6th grades. I need activities to fill up 45 minutes for 3 days. I want it to all be hands-on; it's not supposed to be "schooly". Anyone have some ideas?
Thanks!
-
In Preparing, they either do English 3 or 4, and complete an entire year. I think it slows down in CTC, but I could be mistaken. I decided to keep my dc on track with English and not slow down, but if you go to the HOD boards and read the reasoning behind HOD's schedule, it does make sense. She schedules other writing programs too, so she's trying not to overwhelm the student! We are opting to just do the writing assignments from R&S, and are staying on grade level with English.
So, you have to make a decision- follow HOD's recommendations and stick with their schedule long-term, or just do your own thing for English. We opted to do our own thing so we aren't "behind" (since we aren't using HOD for the long-haul anyway).
-
I had a couple of coin sets like you are talking about. I broke the plastic open and used the coins! I am NOT a collector, and keeping stuff like that around annoys me. Double check to make sure they aren't worth anything as a set, and if not, don't hesitate to spend them!
I also have negatives, and I'm thinking of tossing them.
I'd donate the camera to the Goodwill; someone might be looking for one just for parts or something.
-
Ok, I'm breaking your rules, because my 4th didn't come by 38 weeks with only 30 minutes of labor.
He came right on time, but it was 3 hours of easy labor. I woke up at 3 a.m. having contractions. I took a shower, got dressed, we left, stopped at McDonald's so dh could get some food, and finally got to the hospital at 5:30 a.m. I was 9 cm when I was checked, and by the time they had me sign some paperwork and get an IV, it was time to push and he was out at exactly 6 a.m. Pushing took less than 5 minutes and the only part that hurt was the shoulders.
My 4th was my easiest labor and delivery, so I really wanted to respond to your post! :)
(I have to add that my 4th was also my biggest baby, at 10 lb 13 oz!) :D
-
When it comes to repetition of math facts vs. conceptual math programs, I have found CLE to be a "best of both worlds" kind of program. We were combining R&S and Singapore prior to finding CLE 2+ years ago.
That being said, if you want to stick with R&S, then here is a copy-and-paste from another board I frequent. It's long, but it does discuss conceptual understanding as found in R&S. It was directed at someone who was using Singapore.
Here are some comments about R&S I've saved over the years:
From Laura in TX:
Rod and Staff is a traditional math program, more similar to the math programs used in the 50s and 60s to many of the programs used today. These were excellent math programs, and most would acknowledge that Americans were better at math when we used these traditional math programs than students are today who are using all of these programs that are emphasizing “conceptual understanding†every step of the way. Traditionally, math was taught with the classical model, where there was more emphasis on drill and memorization in the early years, with an increase in conceptual understanding or analysis occurring each year. R&S does teach conceptual understanding, but it is quite difficult to see until you are perhaps 2 or 3 months into the program because it is done in the early years with little baby steps.
The best example I can think of this is the instruction with fractions. My daughter’s understanding of fractions, now in the fourth grade, is absolutely wonderful. Rod and Staff began with the traditional dividing of shapes into halves and thirds and fourths in the second grade, and also advancing to two-thirds or three-fourths, and the idea the three-thirds or four-fourths equals one. In the third grade, they apply this knowledge to math in all types of contexts - what is one half of a foot, what is one-fourth of a pound, what is one-fourth of a dollar? What is three-fourths of a dollar? This is done pretty much off and on in the daily lesson, all year long, and is seen in MANY word problems. My daughter really understood fractions and applying them to numbers and real problems.
Then you move to fourth grade, and they introduce counting by halves, by fourths, and by eighth, using a ruler as a visual aid at first. So they count 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 1 1/4, 1 1/2, etc. and also 1/8, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, 1. After doing this exercise for several days, they do equivalent fractions, but it is almost not necessary to explain anything, because they have already figured out that 4/8 = 1/2 and that 2/8 = 1/4 because of the counting exercises. They just now learn the algorithm that shows that this same logic can apply to numbers which can’t be visualized, such as 27/36. By the time my daughter reached the lesson where they taught how add fractions, she already ‘understood’ that you could just add the numerators of like fractions, that you couldn’t do that with a fractions like 1/8 + 1/4, but that you needed a common denominator. This understanding was about 2 months in the developing and it would have been difficult to see by just flipping through the book.
Somewhere around this general timeframe, they are also doing long division and giving remainders as an answer, but combining it with word problems so that it is obvious why the remainder is actually a fraction such as “3 boys share 4 peaches. How many peaches will each boy get? What part of the remaining peach will they get?†After a couple lessons with word problems like this, they have division problems where they are supposed to give their answer with the remainder as a fraction, and they are then introduced to the term “mixed numbers.â€
So, yes, I would say there is wonderful teaching in R&S that leads to conceptual understanding, it is just done in a different way than many modern math programs, and that it occurs very slowly in the lower grades. Because there is a strong emphasis in the primary grades on drill, particularly fact drill, people often get this misperception of R&S, especially if they look primarily at the student workbooks or text instead of at the TM. The real lesson and the real learning takes place in the daily lesson at the whiteboard. The workbook and/or textbook is mainly just review problems and/or drill.
I recommend that you read this article which is linked on The Mathematically Correct Web page by Dr. H. Wu called “Basic Skills Versus Conceptual Understanding: A False Dichotomy in Mathematics Education.†This article will help you understand why it is essential that students get plenty of drill and review as well as lessons that work towards conceptual understanding; and also why conceptual understanding can only get you so far - no one can visualize a problem such as 2/97 divided by 31/17; eventually a student must become fluent with the algorithms, which means to have them memorized to the point of automaticity. This only happens with drill and review.
One more thing, since you are currently using Singapore, I can compare it a little to that program. Singapore pushes conceptual understanding more than many math programs. It has some drill and review, and the assumption is that teachers in Singapore are providing much more drill and review, but this program pushes to the limit for conceptual understanding in the early grades. It doesn’t take small steps in this area, it wants total understanding in one lesson of some concept that R&S might spend two or three months developing. Additionally, Singapore wants them begin applying this new understanding immediately to problems and word problems. This is excellent for some children, especially the math-bright among us, but for many, it is too much too soon. My daughter needed the slow and steady approach of Rod and Staff for the primary years. I knew this, but I couldn’t really verbalize it, until I read the excellent review of Singapore math by Susan Wise Bauer of the Well-Trained Mind which you can find on her Web page.
-
I switched phonics for my 3rd child because of wanting something different, and midway through the year I switched back to the program I used for my oldest two because I realized I like it MUCH better. So, in my experience, switching simply because of "parental boredom" is not a good idea. :) (I did have other reasons too, like the fact that ds seemed like he'd do better with a different scope and sequence. Turns out we should have just stuck with what I'm used to and slowed down in certain parts.)
-
Well.... that's a good question!! :lol: Unfortunately I'm still trying to figure it all out.
My DS is a math lover, so I'll start with that. He doesn't mind doing a little extra math. If I tried to piece together every bit of both curricula, I'm sure it'd be a bit much though.
Here's what happened: We got Singapore, and he hated it on sight. It was just so different from what he was used to. (This is our first year hsing.) So we set it aside, and I researched, and I ordered CLE... I know it's a good solid program, and that although the "conceptual" piece maybe isn't as strong as Singapore, it still does a good job of that plus fact drill. We started it. It's a bit more review/spiral than my son really prefers, but he *needs* some of that whether he likes it or not, LOL!! And honestly, as a standalone, it would work just fine for us.
So in the meantime, he started working with the Singapore IP book. We realized that part of the problem is we got a lower level than we needed to, but really got to like the format... so he was flying through it.
All that to say... for right now, anyway... we are working through CLE 400, skipping the flash cards, but doing the speed drills as a warm up. I will have him do one or two lessons per day. We're also going to keep working through Singapore 3A & 3B. With that, we're reading through the textbook, making sure he understands the concepts, skipping the workbook, and doing the IP. Later, we'll add in the CWP. Probably, we'll get to a point where we do 2 lessons of CLE 3 days per week, and a block of Singapore 2 days per week... but that's entire in the idea stage right now.
Clear as mud? :D I don't know if we'll keep doing this same thing. We're going to keep doing math over the summer, so we'll need more than a standard year's worth for now. Check back with me in a month or two and see if I still have my sanity, and I'll give you an update!! ;)
Hope that helped a little....
Cris-
Thanks for sharing! I hope you are able to get it all figured out! Here's an idea- use Singapore textbooks (without any of the workbooks, except maybe CWP) to teach the concepts as they are introduced in CLE? Then the Singapore methods can be used, but you'd still have the drill and spiral review of CLE. I'm considering something like this. CLE is a great program on its own; I'm just thinking lately that the dc could benefit from the methods that Singapore teaches, as well as the standard algorithms.
ETA: I've started looking at samples of Singapore textbooks, and I was pleasantly surprised at how much we've learned in CLE. So, I'm thinking that keeping CLE as our one and only math program is not such a bad thing. I will continue using manipulatives to help teach the lessons, and I do want to work on mental math a bit more (which is included in CWP, which we already do occasionally). But I really don't think I need to buy Singapore textbooks too.
-
One day we will all be "simply Christians" again. :D
I'm looking forward to that day!!!!
-
I just wanted to say that not knowing that people wear orange on St. Patrick's Day does not mean people aren't aware of the blood that has been shed in Ireland's conflicts. It just means we weren't aware that people wear orange as a political statement about it...
:iagree:
-
Thanks for the info! Ds does not have any other symptoms by the way. I guess we'll just see how he does the next day or so.
-
LOL... yes, you're probably on the wrong board for that!! ;) This board was where I learned it was perfectly okay to do multiple math curricula at once!! I still can't firmly decide between Singapore and CLE so we're doing both for now.
Truly, it would be fine. Think of all the homeschoolers that *do* use just one curriculum. But if you can swing it, I do think it's helpful to at least supplement from a different perspective... doesn't mean you have to do two full curricula.
How exactly are you using Singapore and CLE together? I was using R&S and Singapore (full programs for both) a couple of years ago, and ditched both of those in favor of CLE. It seemed to be a good combination of what I liked about R&S and Singapore. I'm very happy with CLE, but I am wondering if I need to throw more Singapore back in there. I have the dc do CWP once every couple of weeks (when we get to it), and I'm using some methods I learned from Singapore to help my 1st grader learn his math facts up to 20 (I'm teaching him how to calculate them in his head rather than relying on memorization, since memorizing them is going kind of slowly).
So, anyway, even though this thread is supposed to be about using 1 program, I am intrigued by the CLE/Singapore combo. Are you using both fully, or are you just supplementing?
-
My 16-month-old had his MMR vaccine 11 days ago. 2 days ago he started running a fever. I read that this is a normal reaction, but I want to know how long it is expected to last. Thursday he slept a LOT, which made me wonder if something was wrong with him, and then Friday he started with a low-grade fever which stayed about the same all day. Today is Saturday and he's up to 102 this afternoon.
I read that although this is essentially a mild case of measles, it is not contagious. How is that? I know they weaken the virus, but if it's enough to make my child sick, how is it not spreadable to others?
-
I think you'll have a hard time finding a lot of people on this board who are willing to say that you only need one math program. :D That being said, I only use one math program (CLE), but I find myself using methods from Singapore to help teach the concepts to my 1st grader.
I have not used TT or MUS, but could you use just TT but let them watch the DVD's from MUS for fun? They could use the blocks from MUS in their TT lessons if they need them. (Is that possible???)
There's ways to have just one math program, and I prefer it that way, but my 1st grader is teaching me that I need to be willing to use different approaches with him. Not a full second program, just different teaching strategies.
-
I've heard that the anatomy book is harder than the others, but I can't say for sure since I haven't seen it myself. But I wanted to tell you that 3rd and 5th grade is perfect for the Apologia elementary books. We are using Botany now, and my 3rd and 4th graders do the notebooking. I also bought the kit for the experiments so we'd have all of the supplies already. We've really enjoyed it and they've learned a lot.
ETA: Definitely get them both a notebooking journal! That really helps cement what they are learning.
-
This doesn't offend me, the term "tricks" just isn't an accurate term. Understanding place value and being able to re-group to Tens is a fundamental skill in whole- parts math programs like Singapore. The re-grouping skills are scaleable (unlike rote memorization) and help a child develop a real understanding of math operations.
You might want to search You Tube for the RightStart video on their game "Go to the Dump." It is a classics game for developing the knowledge of "pairs that make 10." knowing the pairs that make 10 (learned my whatever means work for you) is an important precursor skill that make the re-grouping to Tens strategy much easier.
We also did a good deal of addition past Ten problem verbally. At first I prompted my son with "what does 8 need to become a Ten? If 7 gives up 2 to help 8 become a Ten, what does it become? Then we have Ten and what? Which is? Type questions.
Later he took the lead role in explaining his sums. But we worked it, and worked it, and worked it! "Right answers" were not sufficient with out an explanation of the re-grouping strategy. This work really paid off.
Best wishes.
Bill
Thanks for the suggestions. I've heard of the Right Start games before but haven't ever purchased. My oldest two children spoiled me, I suppose. They grasp math concepts very easily. I'm finding that my current 1st grader needs more teaching time and more manipulative time. My 3rd grader has no interest in using manipulatives and never has. And yet he clearly understands the concepts because he does pretty complex mental math. He's been impressing me since he was around 4. Anyway, I clearly need to use a different strategy with my 1st grader, and I'm still learning exactly what that is. I watched a video about the c-rods earlier (on someone's blog) and I'm considering using those too. I have a 5yo and 3yo who love to play with them; might as well use them to teach some math too! :)
-
You are correct that there was one Church at the time he lived. All Christians can at least look to him as an example
This is one of the more important things I've learned today. :)
-
I've been sitting here typing and retyping, trying to figure out a way to say this that won't hurt anyone's feelings or get me in trouble. I'm just going to say it.
Unless you understand Irish politics, please don't wear orange on St. Patrick's day. It's not a symbol of being Protestant, it's a symbol of hate and discrimination against Catholics. I'm not saying that's what anyone here is doing on purpose, but you need to understand the history to get how hurtful and offensive that is to an Irish Catholic.
Nobody needs to wear green or celebrate the holiday or any such thing, but deliberately wearing orange is historically a partisan action.
Just sayin'.
Thanks for going ahead and typing this; you certainly aren't hurting my feelings. I'm so glad to finally know more about this green/orange thing, and I'm SO GLAD I didn't wear orange today.
This whole discussion has inspired me to get out dh's church history texts from seminary and learn more!
-
Some actually believe that "Saint" Patrick was a Baptist - not so much denominationally speaking, but simply reckoning by his theology and behavior.
Thanks for that link; I bookmarked it to read later.
Dr. Hive- go to the dr soon, or wait a while? (female content)
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted · Edited by lotsofpumpkins
.